KAREN HUBER 

# RECEIVED FAA OFFIC'C OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LIND AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2167 FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007 

## OCT 10

# 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

# HEARING DOCKET DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matters of: FAA CaseNo. 2011NM010041 DMS No.: FAA-2011-0682 Aviation Technical Services, Inc. Honorable Richard C. Goodwin



### MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Complainant moves pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218 and Federal Rule ofEvidence 201 for judicial notice ofthe following publications or matters ofpublic record: 1. FAA Order 2150.3B, "FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program," Chapter 7 (10/01/07) 2. FAA Order 2150.3B, "FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program," Appendix B, Pages B-1 to B-2, B-20 to B-21 (10/01/07) 3. FAA Order 8110.103, "Alternative Methods ofCompliance (AMOC)" (9/28/07). 4. FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-09-07 (June 11, 2009). 5. The following FAA Orders Assessing Civil Penalties against the holder ofRepair Station Certificate No. HN6R593N:

a. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011NM010051. b. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA CaseNo. 2011N010062. Copies ofthe relevant pages ofthese publications are attached. Respectfully submitted this 3rd day ofOctober, 2012.

## K~/) 

# /-Ut{ae.. Karen Davis Huber FAA Attorney

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoingMotionto Take Judicial Notice has been served viaFederal Express and/or regular mail this date to the following:
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin (Fed Ex) Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2139 FAX: (202) 366-7536 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 (regular mail) Wilbur WrightBuilding- Suite 2W1000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. SW. Washington, DC 20591 FAX: (202) 493-5142 Dane B. Jaques, Respondent's Counsel (Fed Ex) DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 1676 International Drive, Penthouse McLean, VA 22102 FAX: (703) 336-8750

DATED this 3rdday ofOctober, 2012.

# 4.}.tte~ Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, W A 98057 (425) 227-2164

## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

### National Policy

SUBJ: FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program 

## ORDER 

## 2150.38 Effective Date: 

### 10/01/07

This order contains policies, procedures, and guidelines for the Federal Aviation Administration's compliance and enforcement program. The order also articulates the FAA's philosophy for using various remedies, including education, corrective action, informal action, remedial training, administrative action, and legal enforcement action, to address noncompliance with statutory and regulatory requirements enforced by the FAA. It provides for the public a written statement of the Administrator's policy guidance for imposing sanctions for violations ofsuch requirements. The order is used at all levels by agency personnel who are engaged in the investigation, reporting, and processing ofenforcement actions. It applies to all offices with regulatory responsibilities. This revision ofthe order comprehensively updates policies, procedures, guidance, and assignments of responsibility. It reorganizes the order in a manner more useful for agency personnel and is available electronically to agency personnel and the public. The revision amends agency sanction guidance to conform to statutory changes resulting from Vision 1 OOCentury of Aviation Reauthorization Act and incorporates guidance into the agency's compliance and enforcement program order on policies and programs that have developed since the last comprehensive order revision in 1988. Those include policies relating to the FAA's exercise of its authority to administratively assess civil penalties and guidance on the agency's voluntary safety programs. A workgroup of agency personnel from the field and headquarters with extensive experience in statutory and regulatory enforcement reviewed the agency's policies and programs in this area to produce this comprehensive revision ofthe agency order on its compliance and enforcementprogram.

# ·!Mf:~

Robert A. Sturg Acting Admin'

Distribution: A-W-l;A-W (AT/PS/SM)-2;A-W (PP/AM/SF/ 

### GCIFSIIANS)-3;A-XYZ (A T/AF/CS)-2;Z-X (AS/AM/GC/FS)-3; A-Y (AM/ARIGC)-3;A-Z (AMIAN/GC)-3;A-FAC/FACIFCS-O; A-F AF/FA T/FIA-O(L TD);ZFS-325 Initiated By: AGC-:-300 

# -;f/

### 10/01/07 2150.3B Chapter 7. Sanction Guidance Policies


### 1. Purpose. This chapter provides the FAA'spolicies for determining an appropriate sanction once FAA enforcementpersonnel decide thatlegal enforcement action is appropriate. This chapter containsthe general policy the FAA intends to apply in selecting the types ofsanctions, ranges of sanctions within those types, and specific sanction amounts to impose in legal enforcement actions for typical violations ofthe FAA's statute and regulations. This guidance covers the parameters both for selecting sanctions and for modifying sanctions during the informal procedures. The guidance in this chapter is applied in adjudications under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106,44709,44710, 44726, 44924, 46111, 46301, and 70115. Hazardous materials sanction guidance and policies are addressed in Appendix C. 2. General Guidelines.

a. Certificate Suspension Action and CivilPenaltyAction: Sanctions for Punitive and Deterrent Purposes. 

### (1) General. Ifa certificate holder improperly exercises the privileges ofa certificate, a natural consequence ofthat act is to lose the privileges for a period oftime commensurate with the violation. Balanced against this principle, however, the FAA considers the adverse impact that a certificate suspension could have onthe public. Thus, the agency generally suspends the certificates ofindividual certificate holders for violations. However, the FAAusually takes civil penalty action against air carriers and airports because such actions do not disrupt service, which may adversely affectthe public. Nevertheless, whenthe FAA determines that safety considerations warrant it, the agency will suspend the certificate ofany type ofcertificate holder. In no case will the FAA take civil penalty action alone when remedial legal action is necessary or appropriate. (2) Use ofboth punitive certificate action and civil penalty action for the same violations. The FAA generally does not take civil penalty action and punitive certificate action (that is, certificate suspension for a fixed period oftime) against a certificate holder for the same conduct. Ifunusual circumstances warrant deviation from this pracfice, legal counsel consult with the Assistant ChiefCounsel for Enforcement (AGC-300) before initiating the actions. (3) Change intype ofproposed sanction. The initial enforcement action reflects the agency's best assessment ofthe appropriate sanction for the violations alleged. After initiating the action, legal counsel ordinarily does notchange the type ofsanctionunless additional facts or circumstances are presented to the FAA that warrant a change. Ifthe action was coordinated under chapter 6, paragraph 3, with AGC-300 before initiation, then legal counsel coordinates any change inthe type ofsanction with AGC-300 before making the change. b. Legal Sanctions for Remedial Purposes. (1) Indefinite certificate suspensionpending compliance or demonstration of qualification. Suspension action is appropriate where there is a need temporarily to


### 7-1

### 10/01/07 2150.38 suspendthe privileges ofthe certificate orrating pending demonstration ofqualification or compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. FAA generally uses remedial suspension when an individual does not voluntarily surrenderhis orher certificate pending reexamination. 

### See chapter 5. (2) Certificaterevocation

- general. The FAA revokes a certificate when a certificate holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate. The certificate holder's continued exercise ofthe privileges ofthe certificate in such circumstances wouldbe contrary to safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest. Revocation is appropriate whenever a certificate holder's conduct demonstrates a lack ofthe technical proficiency or a lack ofthe degree ofcare,judgment, orresponsibility, required ofthe holder ofsuch a certificate. Orders of revocation are issued on an emergency basis when the certificate holder lacks qualification and is reasonably able as apractical matterto exercise theprivileges ofthe certificate. Legal counsel does:not allege a lack ofqualifications to avoid dismissal ofcharges under 49 C.F.R. 

### § 821.33, the NTSB's stale complaint rule. (3) Certificaterevocation- individuals. The FAA generally revokes an individual's certificate or rating wheneverhe or she demonstrates a lack ofwillingness or ability to comply consistently with statutory or regulatory requirements. A lack ofwillingness or ability to comply may be demonstratedby such things as repeated or deliberate violations orby violations that involve grossly careless orreckless conduct. Even a single violation may be sufficient to warrant a conclusion an individual lacks qualifications. The FAA ordinarily revokes all certificates ofa person who commits a violation involving intentional falsification. (4) Certificate revocation

- entities. Revocation is normally appropriate when a certificate-holding entity deliberately or flagrantly violates the statute or regulations or falsifies records. Revocation also is generally appropriate when the certificate holder has committed the same or similar violations in the recentpast demonstrating a lack ofqualification, or when the certificate holder no longer has, and does not obtain in a reasonable time, the personnel or equipmentto conduct its operation in full compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. (5) Mandatory certificate revocation. Under 49 U.S.C. §44710, the FAA is required to revoke the certificates ofany airman who has been convicted ofviolating certain federal or state statutes relating to a controlled substance when an airplane was used inthe commission ofthe offense andthe airman served as an airman, orwas aboardthe aircraft, in connection with commission ofthe offense or the facilitation ofthe commission ofthe offense. Even when there has been no conviction, revocation is required when an airman has knowingly carried out an activity punishable under these criminal statutes. The Administrator may waive the revocation if a law enforcement officer requests the waiver and the Administrator decides the waiver will facilitate law enforcement purposes. 

### See 49 U.S.C. §44710(f). Under 49 U.S.C.§ 44106, the FAA also mustrevoke the registration certificate ofany airplane used in the commission ofsuch an offense whenthe use was permittedby the owner ofthe aircraft with knowledge that it would beused for suchpurpose. Under49 U.S.C. 

### § 44726, the FAA mustrevoke the certificates ofany certificate holder or an individual who 

### has a controlling or ownership interest in the holder who was convicted**of~** violation offederal law relating to the installation, production, repair, or sale ofa counterfeit or fraudulently-represented aviation part or material orknowingly, and with the


### 7-210/01/07 2150.3B
intentto defraud, carried out or facilitated an activity punishable under such a law. The Administrator may waive that sanction to facilitate law enforcement purposes or amend, rather than revoke, a certificate under certain circumstances. 

### See 49 U.S.C. §§ 44726(£) and (g). (6) Mandatory certificate action for security concerns. Under 49U.S.C. § 46111, the Administrator is required to issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, orrevoking any FAA-issued certificate ifthe Administrator is notified by the Under Secretary ofBorder and Transportation Security (BTS) oftheDepartment ofHomeland Security (DHS) that the certificate holder poses, or is suspected ofposing, a risk ofair piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety. Under 49 U.S.C. 

### § 44924, the Administrator is required, at the request ofthe Under Secretary ofBTS,to suspend orrevoke foreign repair station certificates in connection with security audits. 3. Applicability and Exclusions. The sanction guidance table (table) inAppendix B provides types ofsanctions and general ranges ofsanction amounts for violations of49 U.S.C. subtitle VII

. and 14 C.P.R. parts 1-199 and 49 U.S.C. subtitle IX, chapter 701 and 14 C.P.R. chapter III. ·

Once the agency has determinedthat legal enforcement action is warranted for a violation, FAA enforcementpersonnel use the table and paragraph 4 ofthis chapter, as well as any other sanction guidance in this order, to determine a proposed sanction. The matters described in chapter 7, subparagraphs 3a.-d. are some types ofagency action thatfall outside the scope of paragraph 3 and the table.

a. Decisions to Take Administrative Action (WarningNotices orLetters of Correction). An administrative action does not constitute either a formal adjudication ofthe incident or a finding ofviolation. Forthat reason, FAA investigative personnel do not propose a sanctionusing the table. · b. TheFAA'sExercise ofProsecutorialDiscretion. The decision whether to prosecute a particular case is based on a review ofthe evidence and relevant policy and litigation considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion inboththe initial decision to bring a legal enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a casebased on various considerations. The FAA's discretion inthese areas is absolute and presumed to be immune from review. 

### Heckler v. Cheney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

c. Hazardous MaterialsViolations. Actions involving violations ofthe federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, or the Department ofTransportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.P.R. parts 106 through 185. Enforcement sanction guidance for these violations is found inAppendix C. d. Violations by Members oftheU.S. Armed Forces. TheFAAis required to forward reports ofthese violations to the Secretary ofthe department concerned under 49 U.S.C. 

### § 46101(b), whenever the violator is acting inthe performance ofofficial duties. The FAA, however, takes remedial action in addition to referring a report when the violator, whether or not

7-3

### 10/01/07 

### 2150.38 acting inthe performance ofofficial military duties, holds an FAA certificate, and the violator's qualifications are at issue. The FAAmay take punitive action against a member oftheU.S. Armed Forces for a violation committed when the member is notperforming official duties. 4. Mitigating orAggravatingFactors and Elements. The factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 4.a. through m. have been developed over years ofpolicy making and case adjudication. They have proven useful and appropriate for determining the seriousness ofa violation and for selecting an appropriate sanction. Elements for evaluating and weighing each factor are also described. These factors and elements provide a framework for determining sanctions for violations specifically listed inthe table as well as those not specifically listed. All the factors and elements, however, may not apply to each violation. Only those factors and elements that are relevantto a violation are considered in determining a sanction for the violation. This list of factors and elements is not intended to be exhaustive; other factors may be relevant as well.

a. Nature ofthe Violation. Three elements define the nature ofa violation: first, whether the violation was operational or non-operational; second, whether the violation involved careless orreckless conduct; andthird, whether the violation involved any special aggravating or mitigating factors. (1) Individuals. When an individual who holds a certificate improperly exercises the privileges ofthat certificate, the natural consequence ofthat act should be loss ofprivileges for a period oftime commensurate with the violation. The FAA, therefore, primarily uses certificate actions to enforce operational regulations against individuals who hold certificates. The potential adverse impact that certificate action may have on an individual's livelihood does not alter this principle. Non-operational violations may warrant a different type ofsanction. (2) Entities. The FAA ordinarily takes civil penalty action against a certificate-holding entity (for example, an air carrier) when it determines there would be a substantial adverse impact on the public interest from disrupted service by that certificate holder and the impact is not outweighedby safety considerations. Even when a substantial adverse impact would occur, when there is a need to prevent continuing violations or other egregious conduct by any certificate holder, when any certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a reasonable basis to questionthe qualifications ofany certificate holder, the FAA takes remedial action, for example, revocation or indefinite suspension, as necessary. (3) Careless orreckless conduct. Violations that involve careless or reckless conduct in violation of 14 C.F

### .R. § 91.13 may warrantmore severe sanctions. Carelessness connotes conductthat falls below the standard ofcare orprudence expected ofa reasonable person, or holder ofthe relevant certificate, acting under the same or similar circumstances. Recklessness connotes conductthat demonstrates a gross, or even callous or flagrant, disregard for safety. Aircraft operations that do not otherwise result in a violation ofa specific regulation should be evaluated in light ofthese standards to determine whether they constitute careless orreckless operations inviolation of 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.13. When a person operates an aircraft inviolation ofa specificregulation other than 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.13, however, that violation constitutes a careless or reckless operation in and ofitself. In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation of 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.13 ifit actually or potentially endangers the lives or property ofothers.


### 7-410/01/07 2150.3B
When calculating the amount ofsanctionbased onthis factor, a distinction generally is drawn between instances where 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 is an independent violation andthose where it is residual to another violation. When a 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.13 violation is residual only, a higher sanction generally is not warranted unless the conduct is also reckless. 

### b. Whether the Violation was Inadvertent and NotDeliberate. Ifa violation is deliberate or not inadvertent, a sanction atthe upper end ofthe range or exceeding the range for that type ofviolation generally is appropriate. A deliberate violation generally warrants a sanctionthat is more severe than onethat isjustnot inadvertent. (1) Not deliberate. This element means a lack ofthe degree ofdeliberation found in intentional misconduct. Deliberate or intentional misconductis an aggravating circumstance and includes deliberate conduct that leads to a violation as well as circumstances indicating intent to commit a violation. 

### (2). Inadvertence. An act is inadvertent when itis the result ofboth inattention and lack ofpurposeful choice. For example, an inadvertent act occurs when a pilot flies atan incorrect altitude because he or she misread the aircraft's instruments; however, it is not an inadvertent act when a pilot flies at an incorrect altitude as a result ofchoosing not to consultthe aircraft's instruments or choosing notto use other available means to verify altitude. The test to be applied is whether the conduct, notthe factual or legal consequences, is inadvertent and unintended. 

### Ferguson v. 

### National Transportation Safety Board, 678 F.2d 821, 828-829 (9th Cir. 1982).



### c. Certificate Holder's Level of**Experience~** (1) Level ofexperience refers primarily to the type ofcertificate andratings held (for example, student, private, commercial, airline transport pilot, or certified flight instructor), and the number ofhours flown, by the certificate holder. Certificate holders with greater levels of experience may beheld to a higher standard. Thus, for example, commercial pilots may be held to a higher standardthanprivate pilots and airline transport pilots may be held to an evenhigher standardthan commercial pilots. (2) In determining an appropriate sanction, the FAA may consider the extentto which the certificate holder's action deviated from the degree ofcare and diligence normally expected ofa person withthe certificate holder's level ofexperience. A significant deviation from the degree ofcare and diligence expected ofthe holder ofthat certificate may warrant a more aggravated sanction. 

### d. Attitude ofthe Violator. (1) A goodcompliance attitude is the norm and does not warrant a reduction in sanction. A prior violation history may suggest that a person has a poor compliance disposition, which is an aggravating factor. Furthermore, a person who commits an act or omission contrary to statutory or regulatory requirements after receiving notice through a prior administrative action or counseling that such conduct is inviolation ofthose requirements mightwell be regarded as having a poor compliance disposition. In evaluating compliance disposition, the FAA does not
7-5

### 10/01/07 2150.38
view an alleged violator as having a poor attitude because the alleged violator fails to respond to a letter ofinvestigation, chooses to be represented by counsel, or contests the violation. (2) In assessing the attitude ofan alleged violator, the FAA may consider the declaration ofan emergency to air traffic control. When an emergency is genuine and not ofthe person's own making, the emergency is exculpatory under 14 C.P.R.§ 91.3(b). However, this situation is distinct from the situation where a declaration ofemergency is not exculpatory but is a factor that might be appropriate to consider in determining sanction. In emergency situations, the FAA views declaring an emergency to air traffic control as a sign ofgoodjudgment and a constructive attitude. When an emergency is ofa person's own making, thatperson's declaration ofan emergency may be considered mitigating in determining the sanction to be imposed for any violations committed, inmuch the same way it is considered mitigating ifa person voluntarily reports a violation.

e. Degree ofHazard. (1) The degree ofhazard may beincreased as a result ofthe interplay ofthe operational environment (for example, weather conditions, congested vs. sparsely populated areas) and the nature ofthethreatto safety (to the life or property ofanother, including those inthe aircraft being operated, to other aircraft, or to persons orproperty onthe surface) that the misconduct presents. The safety threat is based on the reasonably foreseeable consequences ofthe misconduct. For example, operating 500 feet below the minimum altitude poses a greater hazard than operating 100 feet below. Similarly, ifan aircraft operator fails to comply with an airworthiness directive by operating 10 hours past a required inspection, the degree ofhazard is probably not as great as when the aircraft is operated 100 hours beyond the required. And itis not mitigating when a violation does notresult in actual harm; that is simply fortuitous. (2) The sanctionranges reflect the degree ofdanger normally inherentin an average violation ofa regulation, without aggravating circumstances. As discussed inchapter 7, subparagraph 5.b., an increase inthe degree ofhazard may form the basis for exceeding the sanctionranges. For example, the range for an unauthorized low flight does not assume extreme departures from required altitUdes, for example, flying an airplane over a crowded assembly of persons at 50 feet f. Action Taken by Employer or OtherAuthority. This factor ordinarily involves the following elements: whether the allegedviolator's employer has taken disciplinary action and whether criminal prosecution is involved. 

### (1) Employment discipline. Where the violation would normally call for a certain type ofenforcement action, the FAA takes that action regardless ofany action taken by the violator's employer. Generally, the FAA does not credit an employer's disciplinary action toward aperiod ofsuspension the FAA imposes against the violator's certificate because ofthe different purposes ofgovernment-ordered, as contrasted with employer-ordered, actions. (2) Criminal prosecution. When arising outofthe same conduct, local, state, or federal prosecution does not preclude the FAA from taking appropriate remedial enforcement action; nor


### 7-6

### 10/01/07 2150.3B
does itpreclude the FAA from taking appropriate punitive enforcement action. For cases where federal, state, or local authorities prosecute criminally, the FAA generally does take remedial enforcement action ifthat is warranted despite the criminal prosecution. However, the FAA does not generally takepunitive legal enforcement action for the same conduct, unless itbelieves the criminal sanctions are not sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent for future violations by the violator and others similarly situated, orwhen the FAA wants to establish a violation history record. Ifthe FAA decides to proceed with a punitive civil enforcement action in addition to the criminal prosecution, it generally considers the criminal penalties incurred in those proceedings in determining the appropriate amount ofsanction to be sought in the FAA's punitive enforcement action.
g. 

### Use ofa Certificate. This factor relates tothe nature orkind ofactivity or operation involved at the time the violation was committed. Whether the certificate holder was engaged in student, private, commercial, or airline activity bears onthe severity ofthe sanction. Air carriers are held to the highest standard ofcare. Likewise, personnel engaged in air transportation are held to the highest safety standard. 

### h. Violation History. (1) A violation-free history is the expected norm, not the exception and, therefore, is not a mitigating factor. Sanctionranges inthe table generally represent the normal range ofsanction for a single, first-time, inadvertent violation. Given the expected norm, a prior violation record canbe evidence ofapoor compliance disposition or ofa pattern ofdisregard forthe FAA's regulations, which are aggravating factors. As a result, a violationhistory canjustify imposing a sanction at the higher end ofthe normal range or a sanction beyondthe normal range. Itmight alsojustify revocation rather than suspension ifthe pattern ofviolationreflects a lack of qualification. In addition, a violation history mightjustify a certificate suspension ifpreviously issued civil penalties have not produced the desired deterrent effect. In deciding whether a violationhistoryjustifies aggravating the sanction or changing the usual type ofsanction, the FAAconsiders the length oftime that has elapsedbetween violations, whether the violations involvedthe same or similarregulations, and whether the violations are factually similar. (2) The following· actions constitute violation history when they involve regulatory violations and become final: orders ofamendment, modification, suspension, or revocation ofan FAA certificate; orders assessing a civil penalty; findings ofviolation contained in a consent order, order ofcompliance or denial; and findings ofviolation made by a federal court. In addition, a party may agree as part ofa settlementthat the FAA may consider alleged violations as findings ofviolation for future sanction determinations. 

### i. Decisional Law. Decisions ofthe FAA decisionmaker representthe FAA Administrator's position on issues arising incivil penalty assessment actions, including issues regarding sanctions. Thepolicy inthis order also represents the Administrator's position on sanctions in legal enforcement actions. To the extentthat this document conflicts withFAA decisionmaker decisions published before this document's issuance, the sanction guidance policy inthis order supersedes those decisions. However, FAA decisionmaker decisions published after



### 7-7

### 10/01/07 2150.38
the issuance ofthis document that conflict with the policy in this order supersede this document and are controlling. 

### j. Ability to Absorb Sanction. Sanctions should be deterrent. While punitive sanctions shouldnot be unduly harsh, they should be substantial enough to prevent violators from profiting from their violations, that is, the sanction shouldbe high enough to remove any profit incentive for violations. Penalties should never be permitted to be a cost ofdoing business. Air carriers, inparticular, are required by law to have the financial wherewithal to operate according to established safety standards. While the FAA does not allow financial circumstances to excuse any violation, it does consider a carrier's size and financial strength in choosing the appropriate sanction amount. The difference in the penalties fixed inthe lawfor large and small business concerns recognizes this fact. A civil penalty that may be a mere 

### costof doing business to a major air carriermight compel a small air carrier to go out ofbusiness. Therefore, the FAA uses air carrier size as one means ofensuring a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on each air carrierthat violates the same FAA regulation. The resulting classification ofair carriers by size and ranges ofcivil penalties are set forth inpart one ofthe table. For all entities and individuals, the FAA considers ability to pay a civil penalty and the effect a civil penalty will have on a person's ability to continue in business to the extent itknows such information. k. Consistency ofSanction. One ofthe agency's goals is to achieve relative consistency in imposing similar sanctions for similar violations. The FAA pursues this objective to assure fairness and so the sanction's impact has an equivalent degree ofdeterrent or disciplinary value to others similarly situated. This goal may not always be achieved, however, because ofthe inherently subjective nature ofthe exercise of judgmentin setting sanctions. I. Whetherthe Violation was Reported Voluntarily. (1) The FAA has programs that allow persons to report voluntarily apparent violations and receive lesser enforcement action provided certain criteria are met. These programs include the aviation safety reporting program, the voluntary disclosure reporting program, and the aviation safety action program. Besides these programs, the FAA may grant special enforcement consideration under certain circumstances to a person who, incident to his or her report of another's violations, voluntarily discloses his orher ownparticipation inthe same orrelated violations. This special enforcement consideration may range from mitigating the sanction to determining that no enforcement action is required. (2) Ifa person is not covered under one ofthese programs but nonetheless voluntarily reports an apparent violation to the FAAbeforethe FAA discovers it, takes immediate action to correctthe noncompliance, and works with the FAA on steps to preclude recurrence ofthe apparent violation, the FAA may consider such actions in mitigating the sanction for the violation.

m. CorrectiveAction. The FAA considers corrective action a mitigating factor in determining sanction provided the corrective action exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory requirements. The amount ofcredit given in setting a sanction depends onthe extent and timing ofthe corrective action, that is, how extensive was the corrective action and how quickly was it taken.· Implementing new procedures that are above those required under the FAA'sregulations 

### 7-8

### 10/01/07 2150.38

to prevent future violations ordinarily is considered a mitigating factor in determining an appropriate sanction. Corrective action taken afterthe alleged violator first becomes aware ofa deficiency but before FAA discovery ofthe violation ordinarily warrants greater mitigation than corrective action thatis taken only after the alleged violator receives notice ofthe FAA's enforcement action. Corrective action taken by an alleged violator that simply brings that person into compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements is not considered in mitigation of sanction. To mitigate a sanction based on such corrective action would put at an economic disadvantage competitors who have expended the resources necessary to maintain compliance. 

### 5. Use 

### ofthe Table ofSanctions.

a. General. Sanction determinations are not accomplished through a strict mathematical formula; rather, sanction determinations result from ajudgment ofwhere a case lies along a spectrum ofgravity. Ultimately, the circumstances ofeach case are evaluated interms ofthe needs ofsafety andthe public interest. 

### b. Single, First-time, Inadvertent Violations. (1) Part II ofthe table specifies boththe normal types ofsanction (certificate action, civil penalty action, or othertype) and the normal ranges within those types the FAA ordinarily seeks to impose in a legal enforcement action for a single, first-time violation that is generally inadvertent (the table includes ranges ofsanctions for several violations that usually are intentional, for example, interference with a crewmember, smoking on an aircraft). In addition, the table generally reflects a presumption that the alleged violator wants to comply with the law and to remedy any noncompliance and thatthe alleged violator, therefore, has a constructive attitude. (2) For factors b, d, or h ofparagraph 4 (that is, inadvertent and not deliberate conduct, attitude, and violation history), the FAA does not normally deviate from the ranges listed inthe table solely based onthe inadvertence ofthe violation or onthe alleged violator's good reputation, past public service, violation-free history, or constructive attitude. Any mitigating circumstances are to be found inthe facts and circumstances ofthe violation itself. (3) Applying ranges within a sanction type. In determining where, within each range, a sanction should be imposed, the FAA generally considers factors a, c, e, f, g, i,

### j, k, and m of paragraph 4 (that is, nature ofthe violation, level ofexperience, degree ofhazard, action by employer or other authority, use ofcertificate, decisional law, ability to absorb sanction, consistency ofthe sanction with similar cases, corrective action), to the extent they are applicable orrelevant. Whendetermining a specific sanction amount within a range, FAA enforcement personnel begin with an amount in the middle ofthe range and increase that amounttoward the higher end ofthe range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end of the range for mitigating factors. (4) Deviatingfrom ranges within a sanction type. The FAA mightimpose sanctions belowthe normal ranges based onjustifiable mitigation under factors

### j, 1, and m ofparagraph 4 (that is, the ability to absorb the sanction, voluntary reporting, corrective action). The FAA may 

### 7-9

### 10/01/07 2150.38 impose sanctions above the normal ranges whenthe following circumstances, relating to factors b, d, e, and h ofparagraph 4 are present: the violation is other thaninadvertent 4

, the violatorhas a violation history, the violation involves a significant degree ofhazard, orthe violatorhas a poor compliance disposition. The ranges also may be exceeded when the case involves multiple violations. (See chapter 7, paragraphs 6 and 7).



### c. Types ofSanction. (1) General. The FAA ordinarily does notinitiate punitive civil penalty and punitive certificate actions (that is, fixed-period certificate suspensions) against a certificate holder for the same offense. While electing to impose one sanction is not a legalbar to a concurrent proceeding to impose another, pursuing both actions solely for punitive purposes usually is not necessary. The FAAtakes remedial andpunitive actions inthe same case, however, when warranted. (2) Selectingtypes ofsanctions. Except in exceptional circumstances, the FAA uses the type ofsanction recommended in the table. The FAA must impose any sanction mandated by statute (for example, revocation under 49 U.S.C. 

### §§ 44106(b), 44710(b), and 44726(b) unless waivedby the Administrator). 

### 6. General Guidance on Multiple Acts or Multiple Violations.

a. Description ofMultiple Violations. Enforcement actions often involve multiple violations: multiple violations ofa single regulation; a single violation ofmultiple regulations; ormultiple violations ofmultiple regulations. Inaddition, under 49 U.S.C. 

### § 46301(a)(2), ifa violation is a continuing one, each day the violation continues, or each flight for which the violation was committed, constitutes a separate offense. 

### b. General Sanction Guidance. Multiple violations ordinarily result in high sanction amounts. Such sanction amounts ordinarily are not determinedby simply adding up the individual penalties for multiple violations set forth in the table, however. Simply adding up the individual penalties for each violation could result in compounding a sanction in a disproportionately harsh manner for the conduct involved. Conversely, multiple violations may be so serious intheir consequences for safety and the public interest as to require a penalty greater than the sum ofthe recommended amount ofpenalty provided for in the table for each violation.



### c. Single Act ofNoncompliance Resulting in Multiple Violations. When a single instance ofnoncompliance results in multiple violations ofgeneral and specific regulations involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA ordinarily does not compound the sanctionto reflect the amount ofsanction recommended inthe table for eachregulatory violation. In calculating the amount ofsanction for multiple violations, FAA enforcement personnel consider

4 When the violation is one that is generally inherently deliberate (e.g., interference with crewmember or smoking violations), factor b. is not considered in determining whether the sanction should be above the range in the table. Theranges in the table for such violations already have taken into consideration the inherently deliberate nature of the violation. 

### 7-10

### 10/01/07 2150.38
the totality ofcircumstances relating to the multiple violations, including the alleged violator's degree ofculpability, and whether the alleged violator had taken steps, although unsuccessful, to preventthe violations. 

### d. Type ofLegalEnforcement Action. Where this guidance designates the type oflegal enforcement actionfor a single violation, the FAAordinarily selects the same type ofsanction for multiple violations ofa similar nature. The seriousness ofmultiple violations, however, may require changing what is normally a civil penalty action to a certificate action or, sometimes, a punitive certificate suspension to a remedial revocation action. 

### 7. Special Considerations for Numerous Multiple Violations Resulting From an Initial Act or Omission. To determine penalties for numerous multiple violations that result from an initial act or omission, the FAA applies the special considerations and guidance in chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.a. through e. These cases involve such a high number ofmultiple violations that ifFAA enforcement personnel were simply to add the recommended amounts ofpenalty for each flight or day that constitutes a separate violation, the resulting sanction amount couldbe disproportionately harsh for the misconduct involved, in an average case.

a. 

### Determining Proposed Penalty. To determine an appropriate civilpenalty in a case involving numerous multiple violations resulting from an initial act or omission (for example, an aircraft operated on a dozen ormore flights after being improperly returnedto service), FAA enforcement personnel: 

### (1) Identify each initial act or omission that caused orresulted in the multiple violations (for example, improper maintenance plus improperreturn to service; failure to maintain a quality control system). (2) Consultthe table in Appendix Bandthe general guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 4, on aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the amount ofpenalty appropriate for each initial act or omission that caused or resulted inthe multiple violations (for example, in airworthiness cases, a penalty for the act ofimproper maintenance or inspection; in manufacturing cases, a penalty for the act offailing to maintain a quality control system). (3) Determine the amount ofpenalty for the numerous multiple violations by applying the guidance in chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.b. through d. Ofparticular importance in determining anappropriate sanction for numerous multiple violations is the degree ofthe alleged violator's culpability for the multiple violations. A lower degree ofculpability is presentwhenthe alleged violator neither knew nor was likely to discover the continuing violations. For example, once improper maintenance was done there were no signs ofit from suchthings as discrepancies reported by the crew, and no inspections that would have ledto its discovery were scheduled. A more significant degree ofculpability is present when factors such as the following are present:

• the initial act or omission was entered in records that should have led to immediate detection and correction; • the initial act or omissionremained undetected and continued through required inspections or checks designed to reveal such discrepancies; 

### 7-11

### 2150.38 10/01/07

• the alleged violator was not following maintenance or inspectionprocedures the FAAhad approved or accepted; • the level ofthe alleged violator's organizationthatwas aware of, or involved in the noncompliance included management (for example, management implemented policies that contributedto the violations), although an alleged violator's culpability does notrequire management involvement; • the alleged violator has a history ofsimilar violations or a history ofsystemic deficiencies. Knowing and willful violations connote the highest degree ofculpability. (4) Add the penalties arrived at for the initial violation to the penalty for the multiple violations. 

### b. Limitations on Total Civil Penalty Amounts for Numerous MultipleViolations. (1) In an average case involving numerous inadvertent, multiple violations resulting from 

### a: single act or omission, that is, not one that is coveredby chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.c. or 7.d., the total civil penalty for the multiple violations ordinarily falls within the ranges provided in either Figure 7-1 or 7-2. The group classifications are defined inpart I ofAppendix B. (2) The term 

### isolatedinFigures 7-1 and 7-2 typically describes a single instance ofan employee's failure to follow a statutory or regulatory requirement, contrary to the company's ownpractice orprocedure. A case may involve a number ofisolated and unrelated violations. Each group ofthe multiple violations resulting from each isolated violation ordinarily is subject to the isolated, inadvertentranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2. (3) Inadvertent failures are considered

### systemic ifthey are repetitive orotherwise demonstrate an underlying deficiency inthe alleged violator's system, practices, orprocedures. Systemic failures generally warrant more substantial penalties and indicate a need for corrective action. (4) The aggravating or mitigating factors and elements in chapter 7, paragraph 4. are consideredto determine an appropriate civil penalty withinthe applicable range inFigure 7-1 or 7-2, for the multiple violations resulting from the initial act or omission. Ofparticular importance is an evaluation ofthe seriousness ofthe potential hazard causedby the violation and the degree ofculpability ofthe alleged violator for the multiple violations.



### 7-12

### 10f01/07 2150.38 Figure7-1. Ranges ofPenalties for Air Carriers, Commercial Operators,Part 125 Operators Type of Group I Group I Group II Group II or Group III Group IV Violations Large Small or Part Part 125 Business Business 125 Large Small Business Business Inadvertent, $200,000- $100,000- $150,000- $100,000- $75,000- $50,000- Isolated $400,000 $300,000 $300,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 Violations Inadvertent, $300,000- $200,000- $250,000- $150,000- $100,000- $75,000- Systemic $500,000 $400,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $150,000 Violations
Figure7-2. Ranges ofPenalties for Air Agencies, Airports, Manufacturers Type of Air Air Airport Airport Manufacturing Manufacturing Violations Agency Agency Operator Operator Large Small Large Small Large Small Business Business Business Business Business Business Inadvertent, $150,000- $100,000- $200,000- $100,000- $200,000- $100,000- Isolated $300,000 $200,000 $400,000 $300,000 $400,000 $300,000 Violations Inadvertent, $250,000- $150,000- $300,000- $200,000- $300,000- $200,000- Systemic $400,000 $300,000 $500,000 $400,000 $500,000 $400,000 Violations

c. Penalties Outside the Ranges. (1) Penalties lower than the ranges. Itmay be appropriate to select a civil penalty amount belowthe ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2 ifthe degree ofculpability is minimal, the degree of potential hazard is extremely low, and there are no other aggravating circumstances. (2) Penalties higher than the ranges. 

### Itmay be appropriate to select a civil penalty higher than the ranges, upto the statutory maximums: Individual

$50,000- $100,000 $75,000- $150,000

• Ifthe alleged violator was significantly culpable inpermitting the initial act or omission; • Ifthe violations involve significant safety risks; • Ifthere was an absence ofcorrective actionby the alleged violator over an extended period oftime; • Where 

### itis necessary to provide an economic disincentive for regulatory noncompliance; or. • Ifthe alleged violator has a poor compliance disposition orhistory. d. IntentionalViolations. Whenthere is substantial and reliable evidence that the alleged violator knew ofthe violations resulting from the initial act or omission and allowed them to 

### 7-13

### 10/01/07 2150.38

occur, the ranges set forth in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 do not apply. For example, operation ofan aircraft whenthere is evidence the operatorknewthe aircraft or flight was not in compliance with statutory orregulatory requirements, yet deliberately operated it anyway, is most serious, and apart from civil penalties, requires consideration ofremedial certificate action. For multiple violations inthese circumstances, any civil penalties sought may be up to the statutory maximum penalty for each violation, regardless ofthenumber ofviolations.

e. Civil Complaints. The guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 7 does not limit the amount of civil penalties that may be soughtin a civil complaint filed inU.S. district court. 8. Modification.

a. Type ofSanction. Except when the FAA exercises its prosecutorial discretion to settle an enforcement action, the FAA generally does not modify orders suspending orrevoking a certificate to provide for a civil penalty. The FAA also generally does not modify orders assessing a civil penalty to provide for a certificate action. The FAA modifies the type of sanction only in those cases involving extraordinary circumstances (beyond the normal aggravating or mitigating factors and elements listed in chapter 7, paragraph 4). New facts discovered after the original order has been issued may provide abasis for modifying the amount ofsanction, but would not ordinarily provide a basis for modifying the type ofsanction: However, ifnewly discovered facts raise new issues, such as the alleged violator's qualifications to hold a certificate, or ifthey implicate a statutorily-mandated penalty, the FAAmodifies the type ofsanction. b. Amount ofSanction. The FAA does not apply the factors listed in chapter 7, paragraph 4. in a mannerthatwould double their effect. Once the FAA has fairly considered the relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances, it generally does not modify the amount ofsanction. The FAAmodifies the amount ofsanction normally only when new information indicates the factors or elements were not fairly applied, or when other clear and compelling reasons are articulated. 9. SpecialEmphasis EnforcementPrograms. Attimes special situations arise that dictate the need for more effective enforcement action through increased sanctions or other measures in a particular regulated area or segment ofindustry. When these circumstances arise, the FAA may setup a special emphasis enforcementprogram, designed to focus on a particular area of noncompliance ona national or local geographical basis. 

### 10. SmallEntities.

a. General. (1) Underthe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), the FAA is required to have a policy orprogramto provide for the reduction, and under appropriate circumstances waiver, ofcivil penalties for statutory orregulatory violations by small entities. Underthe law, such a policy is to contain certain conditions. Those suggested by Congress are: requiring the small entity to correctthe violation within a reasonable correction period; limiting the applicability to violations discovered through participation in a compliance 

### 7-14

### 10/01/07 2150.38
assistance or audit program operated or supported by the agency; excluding small entities that have been subject to multiple enforcement actions by the agency; excluding violations involving willful orcriminal conduct; excluding violations that pose serious health, safety or environmental threats; and requiring a good faith effortto comply with the law. The SBREFA also provides that under appropriate circumstances, the FAA may consider ability to pay in determining the penalty to assess a small entity. (2) Congress intended that agencies have the discretion to develop the limits oftheir enforcementpolicies for small entities and the specific circumstances under which penalty reductions or waivers would be granted. Becausethe statute requires an agency, subjectto the requirements and limitations ofother statutes, to place conditions or exclusions on its enforcementpolicy under SBREFA, it does not appear Congress intended agencies to reduce or waive penalties solely because an alleged violator is a small entity. Rather, the statute contemplates that certain criteriabe met before an agency reduces or waives a penalty against a small entity. Although the SBREFA imposes a requirement on agencies to establishpenalty reduction and waiver programs for small entities, Congress recognized that some agencies already have formal or informal policies or programs that would meet this requirement.


### b. FAA's Policy underthe SBREFA. (1) The FAA's compliance and enforcement program includes several policies that meet the requirements of, and are consistent withthe intent of, SBREFA. Taken together, these policies constitute the FAA's policy mandated by SBREFA. (2) Under the FAA's compliance and enforcementprogram, for example, FAA investigative personnel have the discretion to address alleged violations by any person, including small entities, with lesser enforcement action than a civil penalty, that is, administrative action, providedthe criteria in chapter 5 are met. There are two forms of administrative action: a warning notice and a letter ofcorrection. A warning notice brings to the attention ofthe regulated person orentity the facts and circumstances that indicate that a violationhas occurred, identifies the regulatory provision at issue, and requests future compliance. A letter ofcorrection is similar butis intended for use whenthere is an agreement withthe regulated party that corrective action acceptable to the FAA has, or within a reasonable period will be, taken. Administrative actions are less onerous than a waiver ofpenalty inthat they neither carry a sanction nor result in a finding ofviolation. (3) Under the agency's voluntary disclosure reporting program, the FAA takes administrative action instead ofcivil penalty action againstmostregulated entities, including small entities that voluntarily report certain apparent violations to the FAA, complete corrective action satisfactory to the FAAto prevent their recurrence, and meet certain other criteria. (4) The FAA's sanction policies have historically provided for reductions ofcivil penalties in appropriate cases based on the mitigating factors listed in chapter 7, subparagraph 4., which include ability to pay and whether a penalty would preventthe entity from continuing in business.



### 7-15

### 10/01/07 2150.38 (5) For air carriers and commercial operators, the FAA also takes company size into consideration indetermining the appropriate amount ofcivil penalty. The sanction ranges inPart 

### I. Definitions and Abbreviations ofthe table for single, inadvertent, first-time violations by

## U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators differentiate amongvarious sizes ofsuch entities as a means ofproviding a relatively equivalent deterrent for the same violation against each air carrier and commercial operator. While the FAAhas not specified S,uch sanction ranges for other certificate holding entities, itis the FAA'spolicy to seek penalties generally relative to the size and revenue ofthe operation for repair stations, manufacturers, airports, and other entities holding certificates. (6) Althoughthe FAA does notreduce or waive the penalty ofan alleged violator solely because 

### itis a small entity, the FAA appropriately reduces a civil penalty, or elects to take administrative actionrather than legal enforcement action, against a small entity ifappropriate underthe policies described in chapter 7, subparagraphs 10.b.(1)-(5). 

## c. The Small 

### Business Ombudsman. (1) The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman annually evaluates the enforcement activities and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. (2) Each FAA employee who conducts an inspection ofa small business concernthat is regulated by the FAAprovides the small business concern with an information sheet. The information sheet informs that entity that it may submit complaints or comments regarding unfair FAAregulatory enforcement to the National Ombudsman. The information sheet contains the following language: Our objective is to ensure a fair regulatory enforcement environment. Ifyou feel that you have been treated unfairly or unprofessionally, you may contact the FAA by calling the FAA's Office ofRulemaking at (202)-267-3404 orby mailing your comments or complaints to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office ofRulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 808, Washington, D.C., 20591. You also have a right to contact the Small Business Administration'sNational Ombudsman at 1- 888- REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247), orwww.sba.gov/ombudsman regarding the fairness ofthe compliance and enforcement activity ofthe FAA. The FAA strictly forbids retaliatory acts by its employees. As such, you should feel confident thatyouwill not be penalized for expressing your concerns about the FAA's compliance and enforcement activities. 11. Remedial Sanction Guidance Policy.

a. General. (1) The FAA statute requires the Administratorto promote "safe flight ofcivil aircraft in air commerce ...." 49 U.S.C. 

### § 44701(e). As one means ofachieving this goal, the statute specifically authorizes the Administrator to issue various certificates. These certificates include


### 7-1610/01/07 2150.38
airman certificates, type certificates, production certificates, airworthiness certificates, air carrier operating certificates, airport operating certificates, air agency certificates, and air navigation facility certificates. 49 U.S.C. § 44702(a). For most ofthese certificates, the statute requires the Administrator to investigate and make appropriate findings regarding qualifications to hold the certificate applied for before the certificate is issued. For example, the Administrator is required to investigate and make findings that persons applying for airman certificates are qualifiedto hold those certificates; that aircraft and aircraft engine parts are properly designed and manufactured, perform properly, and meetthe regulations and minimum standards prescribed before issuing a type certificate, and so forth. 49 U.S.C. §§ 44702-44706. Once the Administrator finds the applicant is qualified for the certificate applied for, the Administrator is required to issue the certificate in question. (2) Becausethe Administrator's responsibility to promote safety in air commerce and air transportation is constant, the Administrator must also take appropriate action when the Administrator finds, or has reason to believe, the certificate holder no longer possesses the qualifications required to hold a certificate. Thus, the statute provides that the Administrator "may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, air navigation facility, or air agency orreexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title," and that the Administrator "may issue an order amending, modifying, suspending or revoking

... any part ofa certificate issued under [chapter 447 ofthe statute] if

...the Administrator decides after conducting a reinspection, reexamination, or other investigation that safety in air commerce or air transportation requires that action." 49 U.S.C. §§ 44709(a) and (b) (1) (A).(3) Revocation is the appropriate remedy for conduct that demonstrates that a certificate holder lacks eitherthe technical proficiency orthe degree ofcare,judgment, and responsibility, required for the certificate and ratings held. The proper standard for revocation is not whether specific violations demonstrate a failure to exercise the necessary qualifications ofa certificate holder, butrather whether the violations demonstrate that the holder has never possessed or no longerpossesses such qualifications. Similarly, suspension until demonstration ofqualification is appropriate whenthe agency has reason to believe the certificate holder may lack the required competenceto hold a certificate and generally when the certificate holder fails orrefuses to be reexamined. In either case, using the factors normally applied to select a sanction inpunitive suspension cases is neither required nor appropriate. 

### b. Misconduct Generally Warranting Revocation. (1) The FAA has concluded that by theirnature, some acts ofmisconduct are so egregious as to demonstrate the certificate holder never possessed or no longerpossesses the qualifications required to hold any airman certificate and other certificates. Therefore, such acts ofmisconduct warrant revocation ofall airman certificates and other certificates held by the certificate holder. Such acts include: making a fraudulent or intentionally false statement; operating an aircraft while under the influence ofalcohol or drugs, or with an alcohol concentration of.04 percent or above, or within 8 hours ofconsuming alcohol, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.17(a); operating a civil aircraft within the United States with knowledge that narcotic drugs, marijuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances as defined in federal
7-17

### 10/01/07 2150.38

or state statutes are carried in the aircraft, in violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 91.19(a); refusing to submit to a drug or alcohol test; and conviction for the violation ofany federal or state statute relating to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession, transportation, or importation ofnarcotic drugs, marijuana, depressant or stimulant drugs or substances involving the use ofan aircraft, the exercise ofthe privileges ofthe alleged violator's airman certificate to further the prohibited conduct, or more than one drug conviction ofany kind within the scope of 14 C.P.R.§§ 61.15(a), 63.12(a), or 65.12(a). 5 (2) Except for cases under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106, 44710, 44726, and 46111, there may be unique circumstances for which a sanction otherthan revocation is warranted. Because ofthe serious implications for aviation safety raised by these cases, however, FAA legal counsel coordinates any decision to seek a sanction otherthan revocation withthe Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement. In addition, legal counsel documents the basis for that decision in the case file.



### c. Intentionally False orFraudulentStatements. (1) In general, the PAA considers the making ofintentionally false or fraudulent statements so serious an offense that it results in revocation ofall certificates held by the certificate holder. 

### See, for example, 

### Administrator v. Twomey, 5 NTSB 1258 (1986), 

### aff'd 821 P.2d 63 (1st Cir. 1987)(violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 67.20(a)). Falsification has a serious effect onthe integrity ofthe records on which the PAA's safety oversight depends. Ifthe reliability of these records is undermined, the PAA's ability to promote aviation safety is compromised. (2) The FAAhas handled differently one area ofintentional falsification

- omitting information related to alcohol- or drug-related convictions, and other similar convictions, from applications for airman medical certification. In FAA Order 2150.3A, Compliance and Enforcement (C & E) BulletinNo. 90-2, issued on February 6, 1990, the agency's policy called for the following sanctions: revoking the alleged violator's current medical certificate, ifany, and suspending any airman or ground instructor certificates for 60 days when the falsification involved omitting from the application for medical certification information on a single driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence (DUI) conviction; revoking any current medical certificate and suspending any airman or ground instructor certificates for 180 days when the falsification involved omitting information on a single drug conviction for simple possession from the application for medical certification; and revoking any current medical 

### andany airman or ground instructor certificates when the falsification involved omitting information on more than one DUI conviction, ora conviction for more than simple possession, or more than two drug convictions ofany type. (3) The FAA has reevaluated the sanction guidance contained inC & E Bulletin

5 A drug conviction within the scope of 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.15(a), 63.12(a), or 65.12{a) that does not involve the use of an aircraft or the exercise ofthe privileges ofthe alleged violator's certificate also can warrant revocation in some circumstances. Revocation is appropriate where the totality ofthe circumstances underlying the conviction indicates that the alleged violator lacks thejudgment, responsibility, and compliance attitude required ofan airman. This determination must be made on acase-by-case basis.

### 7-18

### 10/01/07 2150.38
No. 90-2, and has concluded thatthe sanction guidance for fraudulent or intentional falsification should be the same regardless ofthe type ofcase involved. The FAA has determined that falsification in the cases described in C & 

### E BulletinNo. 90-2 has the same potentially adverse consequences for aviation safety as does falsification ofany other record. In essence, aperson who fraudulently or intentionally falsifies these records demonstrates the same lack ofcare, judgment, and responsibility as aperson who falsifies any other aviation safety-relatedrecords. To correct the anomaly created by C & 

### E BulletinNo. 90-2, the FAA rescinds the sanction guidance regarding intentionally false or fraudulent statements in that bulletin and withdraws the Notice ofEnforcement Policy found at 54 Fed. Reg. 15144 (1989). 12. General Guidance for Using the Sanction Guidance Table for Unruly Passenger ConductUnder49 U.S.C. 

### § 46318.

a. General Purpose and Policy. (1) 

### The table at Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p provides the suggested sanction ranges for a single act ofunruly conduct by apassenger subject to the provisions of49 U.S.C. §46318. 

### See also Crew Interference (Unruly Passengers), chapter 4, paragraph 14. They provide general guidance only abouthow to apply the agency's civil penalty authority under 49 U.S.C. §

### 46318. The sanction guidance tables do not supplant the agency'sjudgment or its prosecutorial discretion in evaluating aparticular case for enforcement action. (2) Whether aparticularpassenger's unruly act warrants a sanction within or outside the sanction range, or in the exercise ofprosecutorial discretion a decision not to proceed with enforcement action depends on the totality ofthe circumstances in aparticular case. Where the mitigating and aggravating factors described in chapter 7, paragraph 4 are also present in a 49 U.S.C. § 

### 46318 case, FAA enforcement personnel applying the sanction ranges at Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p consider those factors in selecting an appropriate sanction within or outside the range. The variety ofconduct subjectto 49 U.S.C. §

### 46318 and the varied facts and circumstances within which unruly conduct may occur, may also warrant consideration ofother mitigating and aggravating factors unique to unruly passenger conduct. Some ofthese additional factors are set forth in chapter 7, subparagraphs 12.b. and c. b. Additional Aggravating Factors to Consider. In addition to the factors described in chapter 7, paragraph 4, FAA enforcement personnel consider other potentially aggravating factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 12.b.(l)-(7) in the selection ofan appropriate sanction within or outside the sanction range. (1) The severity ofthe unruly conduct. The severity ofthe conduct may be indicated by several factors, including:

• The physical characteristics ofthe individual committing the unruly conduct contrasted with those ofthe victim. • The nature ofthe conduct itself. • The extent ofany injury inflicted.



### 7-19

### 10/01/07 2150.38 (2) Whetherthe unruly conduct occurred when the aircraft was in flight orwhile passengers were boarding or deplaning. Certain unruly conduct that occurs during flight or on a crowded boarded flight may be more aggravating than the same conductthat occurs while passengers·are deplaning. (3) Whetherthe unruly conduct was directed at a crewmember or a passenger. Because a crewmember has safety duties to perform on a flight, unruly conduct against a crewmember may be more aggravating than the same unruly conduct directed at an individual who does not have any safety duties to perform on the flight. (4) Whetherthe unruly passengerprovoked the situation that resulted inthe unruly conduct. For instance, a passenger who instigates a confrontation, or a passenger who mixes alcohol with prescribed or over-the-counter drugs that the passenger claims precipitated the unruly conduct. (5) Whetherthe unruly conduct necessitated thatthe flight be diverted from its intended destination. (6) Whether the unruly conduct necessitated thatthe flight crew call ahead for law enforcement to meetthe flight on arrival. (7) Whetherthe unruly conduct was inflicted with malice or inanger.



### c. Additional Mitigating Factors to Consider. The factors listed in chapter 7, subparagraphs 12.c.(l)-(3) mayjustify a sanction belowthe sanction range, or in the agency's prosecutorial discretion, mayjustify a decision not to prosecute a passenger's unruly conduct. (1) Whether the unruly passenger has already served a criminal sentence for the same conduct or has already made monetary restitution inthe context ofa criminal prosecution for the same conduct. (2) Whether the passenger's unruly conduct was caused by a diagnosed medical or mental condition for which the passenger was receiving medical treatment. (3) Whetherthe unruly conduct was a reasonable response to a provocationby another. However, a passenger's use ofunreasonable force in response to a provocation by another individual on the aircraft would not constitute a mitigating factor. 

### d. When to Apply the Sanction Range for Acts Posing an "ImminentThreat" to Safety ofthe Aircraft or Others on Board the Aircraft. (1) The· sanctionrange at Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p for an act that poses an imminent threat to safety ofaircraft or other individuals onthe aircraft applies when there is an 

### imminentthreatto the safety ofthe aircraft or to the 

### collective safety ofothers onboard the aircraft. For example, a passenger attempting to open an emergency exit door wouldbe an imminent threat to the safety ofthe aircraft. Ifthe imminentthreat to safety is directed to


### 7-20

### 2150.38 10/01/07 specific individuals on the aircraft, then the sanctionrange for physical assault or threatened physical at Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p applies. (2) In selecting an appropriate sanction within or outside the sanction range for an act posing an imminent safety threat, FAA enforcementpersonnel consider whether the resultant imminentthreat was the unintended consequence ofthe passenger's careless or reckless act or whetherthe passenger intended the consequences. The former wouldjustify a sanction toward the lowend ofthe range, while the latter wouldjustify a sanction toward the maximum range.

e. Applicable Sanction Ranges for Security Officers or Others Assigned a Law EnforcementFunction on a Flight (for example, Federal Air Marshals Assigned to the Flight). FAA enforcementpersonnel apply the sanction range applicable to physical assaults or threatened physical assaults on crewmembers (Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p). ·f. Applying Unruly Passenger Sanction Guidance Tables to Multiple Acts. When applying the table to multiple acts by an unruly passenger, FAA enforcementpersonnel consider not only the individual unruly acts committed, but also the collective consequences of all the unruly behavior. FAA enforcement personnel do not approachthe sanction determination for multiple acts as a mechanical exercise ofmultiplying the number ofseparate acts ofunruly behaviorby a sanction amount inthe range for a single act. Instead, they use the guidance inthe table and exercise theirjudgment as to the seriousness ofthe conduct, given the totality of circumstances, to determine an appropriate sanction amount that will deter future violations by the unruly passenger and others similarly situated.



### 7-21

## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION 

### ADMINISTRATION National Policy

SUBJ: FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program 

## ORDER 

## 2150.38 Effective Date: 10/01/07

This order contains policies, procedures, and guidelines for the Federal Aviation Administration's compliance and enforcement program. The order also articulates the FAA's philosophy for using various remedies, including education, corrective action, informal action, remedial training, administrative action, and legal enforcement action, to address noncompliance with statutory and regulatory requirements enforced by the FAA. It provides for the public a written statement of the Administrator's·policy guidance for imposing sanctions for violations ofsuch requirements. The order is used at all levels by agency personnel who are engaged in the investigation, reporting, and processing ofenforcement actions. It applies to all offices with regulatory responsibilities. This revision ofthe order comprehensively updates policies, procedures, guidance, and assignments of ·responsibility. Itreorganizes the order in a manner more useful for agency personnel and is available

electronically to agency personnel and the public. The revision amends agency sanction guidance to conform to statutory changes resulting from Vision 1 OOCentury ofAviation Reauthorization Act and incorporates guidance into the agency's compliance and enforcement program order on poHcies and programs that have developed since the last comprehensive order revision in 1988. Those include policies relating to the FAA's exercise of its authority to administratively assess civil penalties and guidance on the agency's voluntary safety programs. A workgroup of agency personnel from the field and headquarters with extensive experience in statutory and regulatory enforcement reviewed the agency's policies and programs in this area to produce this comprehensive revision ofthe agency order on its compliance and enforcement program.

Distribution: A-W-l;A-W (AT/PS/SM)-2;A-W (PP/AMJSF/ 

### GCIFS/IAJVS)-3;A-XYZ (A T/AF/CS)-2;Z-X (AS/AM/GC/FS)-3; A-Y (AM/ARIGC)-3;A-Z (AMJAN/GC)-3;A-FAC/FACIFCS-O; A-F AF/FA T/FIA-O(L TD);ZFS-325 Initiated By: AGC.:.3QO

### 10/01/07 Appendix B Table ofSanctions All Enforcement Programs Except Hazardous Materials Part One - Abbreviations and Definitions 

### 2150.38

1. Applicability. This table ofsanctions applies to violations that occurred on or after October 1, 2007. For violations occurring before October 1, 2007, FAA enforcementpersonnel apply the sanction guidance principles in FAA Order 2150.3A using up to the statutory maximum sanction amount in effect at the time ofthe violation. 2. Abbreviations. The following abbreviations are used in this Table: 

### AP IS means approved production inspection system 

### AIWmeans airworthiness 

### AWC means airworthiness certificate 

### BTS means Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security 

### IA means inspection authorization 

### LE means law enforcement 

### PC means production certificate 

### STC means supplemental type certificate 

### TC means type certificate 

### TFR means Temporary Flight Restriction 

### TSA means Transportation Security Administration 3. Definitions:

a. A 

### continuing violation arises when a specific violation occurs over more than one day or over more than one flight. 

### It also may involve a violation that is 

### ongoing,for example, an ongoingrefusal to provide required records to the FAA for inspection. Punitive sapctions are appropriate for continuing violations that are not currently ongoing. Sanction guidance for these violations is set forth inparagraphs 6 and 7 

### (multiple acts or multiple violations) of chapter 7. A combination ofpunitive and remedial sanctions is appropriate when continuing violations are ongoing. b. Violation committed by a 

### small business concern. Section 503 ofVision 100---Century ofAviation Reauthorization Act (CARA) amended 49 U.S.C. 

### §46301 to change the civil penalty amounts the FAA may seek for violations that occuron or after December 12, 2003; the law sets different limits onthe civil penalties the FAA may seek for violations by 

### small business concerns, as opposed to violations by other entities. Vision 100 CARA gives 

### small business concern the same meaning as in the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 632). Section 632 defines 

### small business concern as an enterprise "which is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field ofoperation." The Small Business Administrationregulations implementthe Small Business Act and define 

### business concern/as


### B-110/01/07 2150.38

<4a business entity organized for profit, with a place ofbusiness located in the U.S., and which operates primarily within the U.S. or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment oftaxes or use ofAmericanproducts, materials or labor." 13 C.F.R. 

### § 121.105. The SBAregulations further define small business concern in tables, describing eachkind ofentity by its economic activity or industry, and listing the limit for smallby annual receipts or, more commonly, number ofemployees. (The size limits generally are established underthe North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).) For the complete list, see 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 orthe SBA's website at www.sba.gov. Thus, ifa person meets the definition ofbusiness concern andhas annual receipts or the number ofemployees within the applicable SBA limit, itis a small business concern, and the FAA will determine the civil penalty using the applicable range. Limits for common aviation entities follow (in numbers ofemployees, unless otherwise noted). Manufacturing Aircraft- 1,500 employees Aircraft engine and part- 1,000 employees Other aircraft part and equipment- 1,000 employees Air transportation Scheduled passenger- 1,500 employees Scheduled freight- 1,500 employees Nonscheduled passenger- 1,500 employees Nonscheduled offshore marine passenger- $25.5 million annual receipts Nonscheduled freight- 1,500 employees Nonscheduled offshore marine freight- $25.5 million annual receipts Othernonscheduled

- $6.5 million annual receipts Support activities

- $6.5 million annual receipts Flight Training- $23.5 million annual receipts Airport operations Airport operator, organized for profit- $6.5 million annual receipts Other operations, excluding air traffic control

- $6.5 million annual receipts Note that the following guidance uses large business concern for some civil penalty ranges. That is not a statutory orregulatory term for purposes ofF AA enforcement. 

### Itincludes each business concern that exceeds the maximum limit for small business concern, as well as any other entity that does not meet the definition of"small business concern."

c. Civil Penalty Ranges. Forthe purpose ofthis table, when civil penalty action is recommended and described as Minimum, Moderate, orMaximum, the penalty ranges are defined in subparagraphs (1) through (9) ofthis paragraph. Note that the middle ofeach recommended sanction range would be for a single violation without aggravating ormitigating factors.

B-2' \ 

### 10/01/07 2150.38 Fig. B-2-e. Other provisions applicable to individual Civil Penalty Certificate certificate holders cont. Action (b) Lack oftype rating 180-day Suspension to Revocation (c) Missed proficiency check or line check 30- to 90-day Suspension (d) Lack ofcurrent experience 30- to 90-day Suspension (e) Failure to have current airman or medical Minimum to Moderate certificate in possession (f) Lack ofinitial or recurrent training 30- to 90-day Suspension (g) Operation with known disqualifying disability Revocation (i) Operating without valid medical certificate when not Revocation medically qualified or application for medical certificate deferred
Fig. B-2-f. OtherAir CarrierPersonnel Civil Penalty Certificate Action (1) Failure to keep manual current Minimum 30- to 90-day Suspension 3. INDIVIDUALS AND GENERALAVIATION- OWNERS,PILOTS,REPAIR STATIONS, PILOT SCHOOLS, MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL. Fig. B-3-a. Owners and Operators OtherThanRequired Civil Penalty Certificate Crewmembers Action _(1)_ Failure to comply with airworthiness directive Moderate to Maximum (2) Failure to perform or improper performance of Moderate to Maximum maintenance, including required maintenance (3) Failure to make proper entry in aircraft log Minimum to Moderate (4) Operation ofaircraft beyond annual, 1 00-hour, or Minimum to Moderate progressive inspection _(51 Operation ofunairworthy aircraft Moderate to Maximum (6) Intentionally false or fraudulent entry, reproduction, or Maximum Revocation alteration in any record or report Fig. B-3-b. Repair Stations Civil Penalty Certificate Action (1) Failure to provide required facilities for proper servicing, Moderate to Maximum Indefinite maintenance, repair, or inspection Suspension until compliance to Revocation



### B-2010/01/07 2150.38 Fig. B-3-b. Repair Stations cont. Civil Penalty Certificate Action (2) Failure to provide qualified personnel who can perform, Maximum Indefinite supervise, and inspect work for which the station is rated Suspension until compliance to Revocation (3) Failure to maintain record ofsupervisory or inspection Moderate to Maximum personnel (4) Failure to maintain.record Moderate to Maximum (5) Failure to ensure that correct calibration ofall inspection Minimum to Maximum and test equipment is accomplished at prescribed intervals (6) Failure to adequately describe work performed Minimum to Moderate (7) Failure ofme.chanic to make log entry, record, orreport Moderate to Maximum {8) Failure to sign or complete maintenance release Minimum to Moderate (9) Inspection ofwork performed, or approval for return to Maximum Up to 30-day service, by other than a qualified inspector Suspension (1

0) Failure to have an adequate inspection system that Moderate to Maximum Up to 30-day produces satisfactorygua1ity control Suspension ( 11) Maintaining or altering an article for which it is rated, Maximum Up to 30-day without using required technical data, equipment or facilities Suspension (12) Failure to perform orproperly perform maintenance, Moderate to Maximum Up to 30-day repair, alteration, orrequired inspection for an air carrier or Suspension commercial operator (13) Maintaining or altering an airframe, powerplant, Maximum Suspension propeller, instrument, radio, or accessory for which the repair or station is not rated Revocation (14) Failure to report defect or unairworthy condition to Moderate to Maximum FAA in a timely manner (15) Failure to satisfy housing and facility requirement Moderate ( 16) Change oflocation, housing or facilities without written Moderate a)Jproval (17) Operating as a certificated repair station without a repair Maximum station certificate (18) Failure to permit FAA to inspect Maximum Indefinite Suspension until Compliance (19) Failure to perform inspection properly on part 125 Moderate aircraft (20) Failure to comply with SFAR 36- Second offense Maximum (21) Failure to maintain and carry out BTS-required security Mandatory measures under 49 U.S.C. §44924(c)(1) Suspension pending BTS finding of compliance

B-21U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION National Policy

SUBJ: Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) 

### ORDER 

### 8110.103

Effective Date: 09/28/07



### 1. 

### Purpose ofthis Order. This order explains how to manage requests for alternative methods ofcompliance (AMOC) to airworthiness directives(AD). This order shows howto: 

### a. Advise AMOC requesters whether an AMOC is necessary, 

### b. Identify who can approve anAMOC request,



### c. Differentiatebetween a transferable and non-transferable AMOC, 

### d. Correctly approve, deny, revise, orrevoke an AMOC,

e. Handle requests for global AMOCs (also known as AMOCs ofgeneral applicability), and 

### f. Handle AMOC requests from other civil aviation authorities (CAA) and foreign owners/ operators. 

### 2. Audience. We've written this order for all Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aircraft certification service (AIR) personnel responsible for AMOCs. ·Itis also written for flight standards service (AFS) inspectors, aircraft evaluation group (AEG) personnel, certain designated engineering representatives (DERs) and delegated organization authorized staff members. 

### 3. Where to Find This Order. You can find this order onthe FAA's Regulatory and Guidance Library (RGL) website at http://rgl.faa.gov or the Directives Management website at MyFAA employees website at https://employees.faa.gov/tools resources/orders notices/. 

### 4. Defining an AMOC.

a. An AD contains the required method for correcting an unsafe condition. AnAMOC is a different way, other than the one specified in an AD, to address theunsafe condition on an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or appliance. AnAMOC must ensure the unsafe condition is corrected by providing an acceptable level ofsafety. b. Inthis order, we use the term AMOC to define an FAA-approved alternative method of compliance to the specific requirements ofan AD, including a change in the required time to accomplishthe AD. We also use the term "product" to refer to an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance per Title 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) §39.3.

c. Before 2002, provisions for applying for AMOCs were included in many individual ADs. In August 2002, we added amendment 39-9474 to 14 CFRpart 39. The amendment
Distribution: A-W(VS)-1; A-W(IR/FS)-2; A-X(CD/FS)-2; A-W(VS)-3; A-FAC-O(LTO); A-FFS-7(LTD); AMA-220 (7 copies); AMA-250 (7 copies) Initiated By: AIR-14009/28/2007 8110.103 incorporated several standard provisions previously required to be included in individual ADs. One standard provision specified that the AD apply to the product even ifithad been modified, altered, orrepairedin the area addressed by the AD. Another standardprovision let an owner or operator address the unsafe condition in a different way than specifically required by the AD. This provision allowed an AMOC to be found acceptable to the FAA. 

### 5. When and Why an AMOC is Necessary orDesirable.

a. An AMOC is required ifan owner/operator cannot or does not wish to comply with the actions specified in an AD. Appendix B ofthis order offers some questions and answers about when an AMOC is necessary. b. Why an AMOC may be necessary or desirable include, but is not limitedto the fo11owing: (1) To accomplish AD actions in a way thatbetter suits an owner/operator's business processes. (2) An owner/operator devises another orbetter way ofaddressing the unsafe condition. (3) An owner/operator wishes to adjust the compliance time to an AD. (4) Because existing modifications, alterations, orrepairs to a product make compliance with AD procedures difficult or impossible. (5) To use later revisions ofservice documents specified in an AD, or (6) A superseding AD invalidates previous AMOCs to the original AD. 

### 6. Who Approves AMOCs?

a. Each AD identifies the office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD. Sometimes this responsibility transfers to another office. Ifso, the office identified in the AD is responsible for forwarding AMOC requests to the currently responsible office. (1) Forproducts where the United States is the state ofdesign, the responsible office will be an aircraft certification office (ACO). The term ACO includes the unique certification offices, such as the engine certification office (ECO), rotorcraft certification office (RCO), special certification office (SCO), the airplane certification office, and the military certification office (MCO). (2) Forproducts where the United States is 

### notthe state ofdesign, the responsible office will most likely be an Aircraft Certification Service directorate, orin some cases, an ACO. b. Some ACOshave authorized certain company DERs and delegated organizations to review and approve AMOC requests for certainAD-required structural modifications, alterations, and repairs. See paragraph 

### 10 for more details.

209/28/2007 8110.103



### c. While for most ADs a principal inspector (PI) can't approve an AMOC request, they may comment on an AMOC proposal (such as pointing out the unique characteristics ofthe requester's fleet and operation) before forwarding it to the manager ofthe FAA office identified inthe AD. 7. The AMOC Process. 14 CFR 

### § 39.19 states that "anyone may propose to FAA an alternative method ofcompliance or a change in the compliance time, ifthe proposal provides an acceptable level ofsafety." We may approve the proposed AMOC ifit provides an acceptable level ofsafety to thatrequired by the AD. See figure 1 at the end ofparagraph 7 for the general flow ofAMOC processes. The steps are explained inthe following subparagraphs.

a. Handling AMOC Requests.

, (1) Unless we authorize otherwise, instruct AMOC requesters to send the proposal to theirPI, plus, ifthey wish, a copy to the manager ofthe FAA office identified in the AD. Ifthe requester doesn'thave a PI (such as a design approval holder (DAH)), advise them to send the proposal directly to the manager oftheFAA office identified in the AD. The FAA office in the AD is responsible for coordinating the request with the appropriate AEG. Requesters may also submit AMOC proposals to certain delegated organizations or certain company structural DERs, ifprovided for in an AD. Use ofthis option falls under the "Unless FAA authorizes otherwise" clause in 14 CFR § 39.19. See paragraph 10 for more details. (2) The requester should submit a letter proposing an AMOC. The letter should include: (a) Their name and complete mailing address; (b) The affected product(s), model designation(s), serial number(s) (ifapplicable), and State ofRegistry (ifknown); (c) The AD number and specific ADparagraph(s) to which the proposal applies; (d) A complete and detailed description ofthe AMOC proposal, including (where applicable):

• Part names, • Part numbers, • Part serial numbers, • Descriptions ofdamage (fatigue cracks or corrosion), • Existing or affected modifications, alterations, orrepairs, • Alternative inspection methods, compliance times, and repeat intervals, • Technical descriptions ofalternative processes or procedures, • Pictures and drawings, and • Other details necessary to define the acceptable level ofsafety that the AMOC will achieve.
(e) Substantiating data showing why we should determine thatthe proposed AMOC corrects the unsafe condition with an acceptable level ofsafety. Some examples are:

38110.103 09/28/2007 1. Dataproving that a different inspection method will produce acceptable results. 2. Analysis showing that a previously modified, altered, or repaired structure in the area addressed by the AD redirects the load paths to eliminate the potential for cracking (the unsafe condition) identified inthe AD. (f) Ifthe requester wants to change their airplane/rotorcraft flight manual, instruct them to submit the affected sections ofthe manual andthe proposed changes.
b. Approving an AMOC. (1) 

### Ifthe office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD has delegated AMOC approval authority to a DERor delegated organization, thenfollow the AMOC process as shown in FAA Orders 8110.37, 

### DesignatedEngineeringRepresentative Handbook, or 8100.15, 

### Organization DesignationAuthorization Procedures, as applicable. See paragraph 10 ofthis· order for more information on delegated AMOCs. (2) Ifthe officeresponsible for approving AMOCs to the AD has not delegated AMOC approval authority, they assign an engineer to evaluate the AMOC request. (3) The assigned engineer must ensure that the proposal provides an acceptable level of safety. Whenreviewing an AMOC proposal, the FAA engineer should review the comments received from the requester's PI. Ifthere is no comment or concurrence from the PI,the engineer should contactthe PI, FSDO, AEG, or other appropriate flight standards service personnel for help evaluating any unique fleet or operational characteristics. Note: Forthe purpose ofthis order, FSDO means a flight standards district office, flight standards certification management office and/or flight standards international field office (IFO).
c. Determining Whether AMOCs Can Be Transferred. Ifthe engineer determines that the AMOC proposal provides an acceptable level ofsafety, the next determination is whether the AMOC should be transferable. A transferable AMOC is an AMOC that will continue to apply to a product after it has been transferred to a new owner/operator. The holder ofa transferable AMOC can make the approval document available to someone else who receives a product coveredby that document. Engineers mustbe careful when determining transferability, and not make AMOCs transferable ifthe AMOC depends on:
• A particular maintenance program schedule, which may not transfer with the product,

• Procedures, facilities, or processes 

### unique to the requester,

• The particular way the aircraft is flown orhowthe product is used in the aircraft or requester's fleet,

409/28/2007 8110.103

• Recurring inspections or other maintenance actions unique to a requester's maintenance program, or

• Any other factors 

### unique to the requester. 

### d. Notification ofApproval. Ifapproving an AMOC, the responsible office must send an approval letter to the requester, plus a copy to the requester's PI (or, lacking a PI, their local FSDO). As an option, (and ifthe PI agrees) the responsible office can instead send the approval letter to the PI with a request for the PI to forward the approval letter to the requester. The manager ofthe responsible office (or person acting onthe manager's behalf) must sign the approval letter. The approval letter must, as a minimum: (1) Clearly state the AD number and specific AD paragraph(s) to which the AMOC applies.(2) Specify the make and model designation(s) or other limiting factor (like serial number(s), registration number(s), or partnumber(s)) to which the AMOC applies. (3) Reference the substantiating or other data used to establish the acceptable level of safety which was the basis for approving the AMOC. (4) Identify any restrictions onthe AMOC, such as applicability, special procedures, facilities, processes, or time limitations. (5) Ifapplicable, refer to the appropriate service documents by number, revision level, and date ofrevision. (6) State whether the AMOC is transferable ornot. (7) Include the following statements: "Before using this AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) inthe FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO." "This approval is subject tothe following condition: Ifinthe future the [ACO or Directorate] determines that this AMOC does not provide an acceptable level of safety, the [ACO or Directorate] may revoke or revise the terms ofthe AMOC following notice to the requester and a seven-day opportunity for the requester to comment on the revocation orproposed revision." 

### Note: 

### Ifsome ofthe information in paragraphs 

### 7d(l) thru 

### 7d(5) are contained inthe AMOC proposal, youmay instead referto the information inthe proposal and attach it to the AMOC approval letter.



### 509/28/2007 8110.103

e. Denying an AMOC. Ifthe proposal does not provide an acceptable level ofsafety, then the office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD must deny the AMOC proposal. The responsible office must send a denial letter to the requester, plus a copy to the requester's PI (or lacking a PI, their local FSDO). As an option, (andifthe PI agrees) the responsible office can instead sendthe denial letterto the PI with a request for thePI to forward the denial letter to the requester. The manager ofthe responsible office (or person acting on the manager's behalf) must signthe denial letter. The AMOC denial letter should state the general reasons the proposed AMOC did not establish the acceptable level ofsafety necessary for approval. 

### f. Revising or Revoking an AMOC. Although it shouldbe rare, there may be times when a previously issued AMOC must berevised orrevoked. As an example, a DAH may determine that an action approved in an AMOC does notperform as intended, andprovides this information to the office that approved the AMOC. Revising or revoking an AMOC becomes necessary if, for any reason, the AMOC no longer provides an acceptable level ofsafety. (1) The office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD must correct any previously approved AMOCs that do not achieve an acceptable level ofsafety. To revise orrevoke a previously approved AMOC, the responsible office must send a letter to the AMOC requester proposing a revision to orrevoking the AMOC. The office must send a copy to the requester's PI (or lacking a PI, their local FSDO). As an option, (and ifthe PI agrees) the responsible office can instead send the letter to the PI, asking the PI to forward the letter to the requester. (2) The letter proposing a revision to the previously approved AMOC, for AMOCs approvedby letter with the statements in7d(7), must include the following statements: "This is to inform youthatwe have determinedthatthe AMOC to AD 

### [XXXX-:XXXX], approvedby letter dated [MM-DD-YYYY], does notprovide an acceptable level ofsafety. This determinationis based on 

### [XX]. Therefore, we are proposing that the AMOC be revised, as follows: [XX]. We propose that this revision become effective on [MM-DD-YYYY]. Youmay submit comments onthis proposal no later than [seven days from date, unless there is an immediate safety-of-flightissue], which we will consider before making a final decision." (3) The letter revoking the previously approved AMOC, for AMOCs approved by letter with the statements in7d(7), must include the following statements: "This is to informyouthatwe have determined that the AMOC to AD [XXXX-XXXX], approved by letter dated [MM-DD-YYYY], does not provide an acceptable level ofsafety. This determination is based on [XX]. Therefore, we are revoking the AMOC.

609/28/2007 8110.103

This revocation will become effective on [MM-DD-YYYY]. You may submit comments onthis revocation no later than [seven days from date, unless there is an immediate safety-of-flight issue], which we will consider before making a final decision." (4) Inboth cases (revising or revoking an AMOC), ifthere is an immediate safety-offlight issue, you canreduce the commentperiodto less than seven days, or state that the revision/revocation is effective immediately.

Saf\<:IAMOG rm:.p.::<l>.s\1 to Pl. FSOO., ;and/or r.as.P<>n&lbl.a offt!Ca,

,u.s applical:.d!l'

orartleend 

### Figure 1. AMOC Processes



# ..**~** AMOC Rr.qum;>."r D·Ef'Vdal<agalrJ!d Se<ndAMOC Of'giE!o'lllt:BtiOI"' pro:p<:Je.3il to P t:;R/**~** l"•;;.lllOW AMOC prooo>Sa 10 

# K cl<>lfl'S"''"'" FAA Orde•s6H0.37 0<t organizatlo•1. as 8100.15, a>H:>pplh::.,ble ::owlicaWe

ACOiOin\Ocloratl:<i oraWMnd der'tl.aJ letterto r·et;u«ffiil·er .,.... ___ .,. wll!:l OOPY to i"'lf IFSDO. as

..**.~rr-'.ir.~bl-n·**

ACOiOhorJnrrn:te tlral'ti5Eol1d Approval tettar a,pp.rov,;,l le<tter to 

### ... nmrte<J to gp;ectflc

'""'l"""'t<H' with**mqtJ~:;ttmr** <:'.OiPY to P 1/l''Si::IO. 

# - ..._ afi>**<tj)i)llcabt&~ ~v.;:sllnttr>r**  to 

### 1-----t.,.. roques.w• wltl' t!t>Plfro P'lfFSDO.

"'"**.::~ppiio::.::~bl**..**~** ApprO'VF>I i<':tt"r**(~ranst~;.rabla)** •Nt. an**o~.** and lt'ltla 1'>1**;<>g;ree~.** the re'l>pt>l11:iihlt'.!

7 <:>fiio<:<> """" '""'1\rt"'dmrw" rd the approval <:>r der>l.-1 letter l<l the PI with a m<l""-"t fnr mr. PI to fo<W<tl'd the letter**~o** the**.-eque~l~r.** Exttpolni 

# )09/28/2007 8110.103 

# s: Global AMOCs (AMOCs ofGeneral Applicability).


### a. A global AMOC is a way to approve an AMOC for multiple owners/operators. A global AMOC canbe useful ifthe office responsible for approving AMOCs to anAD expects to receive multiple requests forthe same AMOC. A global AMOC normally covers the entire range of products cited inthe applicability section an AD. Therefore, ratherthan applying to specific owner/operators, a global AMOC applies to (and is normally transferable with) the product. b. An ACO or directorate issues a global AMOC to a third party (such as a DAH ortype club) for the particularproduct affected by the AD. Ifthe third party is a DAH, they can then notify the affected owner/operators by adding a statement in service documents (including revisions to service documents) describing which engineering aspects ofthe service documents are an AMOC to the applicable AD (orparticularportions ofthe AD). The third party can distribute the AMOC approval letter and ifnecessary, attach the related service document. The following is an example ofwhen a global AMOC is appropriate:

• An AD mandates accomplishment ofa service bulletin (SB) on certain aircraft. The DAH later develops revision A to the SB. The DAH requests an AMOC for all those aircraft affected by the AD to use revision A ofthe SB in place ofthe original SB.



### c. The minimum requirements for issuing a global AMOC approval letter are in paragraphs 7d(l) 

### thru 7d(7) above. The office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD sends the global AMOC approval and denial letters to the third party. The responsible office is not required to send a copy ofAMOC letters to a PI orFSDO for global AMOCs. How_ever, owner/operators are still responsible for notifying their PI (or lacking a PI, their local FSDO) before using a global AMOC. 

### d. FAA approval ofa global AMOC applies only to U.S.-registered aircraft. Approval of this type ofAMOC for a foreign-registered aircraft isthe responsibility ofthe appropriate CAA ofthe state ofregistry. Asused inthis order, a "global AMOC" is also defined as an "AMOC of general applicability," a term used in some bilateral agreements. The office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD must share global AMOCs to that AD with Transport Canada and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) under the terms ofourbilateral agreements. 9. AMOC Requests From Foreign Entities Where U.S. is the State ofDesign.

a. We receiverequests from foreign entities to approve AMOC requests for products ofU.S. state ofdesignthat are not onthe U.S. registry. Suchrequests can come from a foreign owner/operator, a U.S. state ofdesign approval holder, or another CAA onbehalfofa foreign owner/operator. We respond to suchrequests because: (1) It's appropriate to give a foreign owner/operator or another CAAtechnical recommendations related to an AD we issued on a product ofU.S. state ofdesign. As the state ofdesign, we have the most familiarity withthe product. (2) It canminimize urgent requests for AMOCs inthe future. Some aircraft change registration often, sometimes during maintenance. A foreign registered aircrafttoday could be


### 809/28/2007 8110.103 U.S.-registered tomorrow. The importing owner/operator must demonstrate AD compliance

. before the FAA can determine the aircraft to be airworthy. Ourtimely response to a foreign request for an AMOC, while the aircraft is on its registry, can speed up future determinations. b. We can recommend approval ofAMOCs for aircraft not currently on the U.S. registry, but only the state ofregistry can approve the AMOCs. We don't have the authority to approve AMOCs on behalfofanother CAA. Ifan owner/operator places an aircraft on a foreign registry, they must maintain it perthe CAA ofstate ofregistry's regulations, which may be different from ours.



### c. When responding to AMOC requests from foreign entities, use the appropriate template in AIR-40 Guidance Memo 03-02 

### -Templates and Guidancefor International Correspondence. The template is titled "FAAEvaluation ofa Request for an AMOC Associated with a Foreign Registered Aircraft". You can access the latest version on the MyFAA page: https://employees.faa.gov/org/linebusiness/avs/offices/AIR/ Atthe AIRpage, under Divisions and Directorates, select "International Policy AIR-40" At the IPO page, under Job Aids/Policy Memorandums, select "CurrentMemos." Ifyou can't access or have questions about the template, contactthe FAAInternational Policy Office, AIR-40. (1) Our**AMO~** recommendation letters to foreign entities must clearly note that since the aircraft is not registered inthe United States, the FAA does nothave the authority to approve the AMOC andthat approval must come from the appropriate CAA. (2) Coordinate any AMOC letters to foreign entities that do not follow the template, or that involve a particularly sensitive situation, with AIR-40_. (3) When replying to direct AMOC requests from foreign owner/operators, always send a copy to the CAA overseeing that operator, and ifdifferent, the CAA ofthe state ofregistry. Contact AIR-40 ifyou are uncertain ofthe appropriate CAA contact. (4) Many times there is a responsible international field office (IFO) that deals with a foreign owner/operator. As an option, you can coordinate the AMOC request with the IFO and have them forward the FAA AMOC recommendation letter to the foreign owner/operator. 

### 10. Delegated AMOCs.



### a. Some ACOs authorize certain delegated organizations or company structural DERs to review and approve AMOC requests. ACOs can delegate AMOC approvals only for ADs where the requester intends to restore an airplane's structure to its type certificationbasis or other known, defined, and published standards. This includes:

• Certain AD-mandated structural modifications, alterations, orrepairs where no previous FAA -approved action exists, and

• Fully substantiated temporary structural repairs, ifthe standards requiredby the AD are well defined.

909/28/2007 8110.103

b. FAA Order 8110.37 permits ACOs to delegate AMOC approval authority to a DAH company DER. See FAA Order 8110.37 for information on what authorized DERs can do withinthis delegated function. In the company DER letter ofauthorization, ACOs must identify the special delegation ofAMOC approvaL See FAA Order 8100.8, Designee Management Handbook, for more information onDER appointments.

c. ACOs can delegate AMOC approval authority to specifically authorized delegated organization staffmembers in two types oforganizations:

• DAH type certificate organization designation authorization (ODA), or

• DAH delegation option authorization. d. See FAA Orders 8100.9, DAS, DOA, andSFAR 36Authorization Procedures or 8100.15 for more information on delegating AMOC approvals to organizations.

e. ACOs must ensure that restrictions applicable to foreign-registered aircraft are followed by DERs/delegated organizations (see paragraph 9). f. The office responsible for approving AMOCs to an AD can terminate delegated authority for approving AMOCs at any time, and for any reason they deem appropriate. See Order 8100.8 for more information on terminating DERdelegated authority. See Orders 8100.9 or 8100.15 for more information on terminating organization-delegated authority.

Susan J.M. Cabler Acting Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division Aircraft Certification Service ·

1009/28/2007 

### Appendix A. Questions from AMOC Requesters 1. Service Documents inADs. 8110.103 Appendix A



### a. I converted the AD and the referenced instructions in the referenced service document to an in-house fleet campaign notice, engineering change order, orindividual work cards. Do I need an AMOC? No, ifyou transfer the AD language to your own in-house instructions and those instructions precisely represent all ofthe AD requirements and compliance times. 

### b. I complied with the referenced instructions in the service document revision referenced in the AD before theAD was issued. Do I need an AMOC? Maybe. Ifthe AD specifically allows previously accomplished work, you don't need an AMOC. Ifit is unclear whether the work done prior to the AD is acceptable, contactthe office that issued the AD.



### c. Do I need an AMOC ifI accomplish the instructions in a laterversion ofthe DAH service document referenced in the AD? Yes, any deviations from the technical requirements ofthe specific documentreferenced in an AD will need an AMOC. So, ifthe aircraft DAH did not obtain an AMOC approval for the later version ofthe service document, youwill needto apply for an AMOC. Contact the DAH or FAA office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD to determine whether the DAH got an AMOC for the service document revision. 

### d. The referenced instructions in the referenced service document in the AD call for a specific fastener on my aircraft. May I substitute another fastener? No. You cannotuse a different fastener (or any part, material, or process) from what is specifically referenced in an AD without getting an AMOC, unless the procedures inthe AD permit substitution. Ifyou substitute another fastener without an AMOC, you violate 14 CFR 

### § 39.7 each time you operate the aircraft.



### e. The AD requires me to perform actions in a service document by a certain date. The service document recommends a date that is laterthan required by the AD. I want to perform the actions atthe later date, perthe service document. Do I need an AMOC? Yes. AD requirements override any other language in service documents. You would have to request an AMOC for a change in compliance time to that referenced in the service document. 

### f. The AD requires thatI accomplish specific instructions in a service bulletin. Those instructions reference a manual, and the manual references a standardpractice manual. My operating procedure differs from the standard practice manual. Do I need an AMOC to keep using my operating procedure?

A-109/28/2007 8110.103 Appendix A Yes. You must accomplish the specific instructions in the service bulletin specified in the AD. That includes any second- or third-tier documents referenced in those servicebulletin instructions. 2. Changes in theAreaAddressedbyADs.



### a. I previously repaired my aircraft structurein the area now addressed by the AD. The repair affects my ability to perform the AD. Must I obtain an AMOC for the AD? Yes. Ifa change to a product affects your ability to accomplish the actions required by the AD in any way, you must request FAA approval ofan AMOC. Unless you can showthe change eliminated the unsafe condition, yourrequest should include the specific actions thatyoupropose to address the unsafe condition. 

### b. During the last AD inspection, I found the crackthatthe AD warned about. I obtained an approved repair from the aircraftDAH, which differs from the repair mandated by the AD. Do I need an AMOC for the repair? Yes, youmust comply with the specific requirements ofthe AD. So, unless the AD stated that you could repair the crack according to a specific method approved by the DAH, you or the DAH must apply for and obtain an AMOC ifany action differs from the specific requirements of the AD.



### c. I developed a repairfor cracks identified in an AD using my organization designation authorization. May I use this repairinstead ofobtaining a repairfrom the aircraftDAH, as prescribed in the AD? No. Before using any repairthat differs from therequirements ofan AD you must receive an AMOC for the repair. 

### d. The AD requires thatI visually inspect for cracks. However, the previous owner/operator installed a repair doubler thatprevents me from inspecting. Do I need an AMOC? Yes. Whenever you cannot apply the specific requirements ofan AD, you must seek an AMOC. In this case, you must either devise a new method to inspect the area identified in the AD, or showthat the repair reinforces the area and redistributes the loads, so an inspection is no longer required. In either case, you must request and obtain an AMOC to ensure compliance with the AD.



### e. The AD requires thatI do an eddy currentinspection ofa structural area. There is a repair doublerbehind the area that interfereswith the eddy currentreadings, making them uncertain. Do I need an AMOC for this AD?

A-28110.103 Appendix A 09/28/2007
Yes. Youneed an AMOC any time a repair, modification, or alteration interferes with the results ofa required inspection. This is particularly true when the results ofthe required inspection are questionable, eventhough you canphysically performthe inspection. 

### 3. RemovingandReplacingAppliances.


### a. The applicability section ofan AD lists an appliance thatI previously removed from my aircraft. Is an AMOC required for the aircraft? No. You don'tneed an AMOC since the AD is not applicable to the aircraft withoutthe appliance installed. 

### b. The applicability section ofan AD lists an appliance installed on my aircraft. I cannot accomplish the actions in the AD because I previously modified, deactivated, or partially removed the appliance. Do I 

### need an AMOC? Yes. You should request an AMOC whenever you cannot apply the specificrequirements ofan AD. The AD still applies to the appliance even though it was modified, deactivated, or partially removed.


### c. The AD says I must install a specific version ofsoftware. I did that. Now I have received a laterversion ofthe same software from the DAH. Do I need an AMOC to install this laterversion? Yes. Unless the AD allows installation ofthe later version, you'll need an AMOC to install any version otherthanthat specifically referenced. 

### 4. SupersedingADs.


### a. An AD supersedes another AD applicable to my aircraft. I had received an AMOC for a different inspection procedure from whatthe original AD called out. Is my AMOC still valid? Itdepends on the superseding AD. 

## • .if the superseding AD includes a provision that AMOCsto the original AD inspection are approved as an AMOC to the superseding AD inspection,



### • Then your AMOC is still valid for the superseding AD inspection.
However:

• .lfthe superseding AD does not include such a provision,



### • Then your AMOC is not valid for the superseding AD inspection.

A-309/28/2007 8110.103 Appendix A Ifyouhave any question concerning compliance with the superseding AD, contactthe office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD. 

### b. An AD applying to my aircraftwas superseded, adding a mandatory terminating action. It

### includes a provision that AMOCs to the inspection methods, approved in accordancewith the original AD, are approved as AMOCs to the inspection methods in the supersedingAD. Can I perform the AMOC inspection instead ofaccomplishing the terminating action? No. Even ifan AMOC is valid, it's only valid for the actions specified in the superseding AD, notnecessarily for the superseding AD as a whole. An AMOC inspection may be an acceptable alternative to the mandated inspection (ifthe superseding AD allows 

### it), butnot for the mandated terminating action. The terminating action must still be done within the compliance time specified in the superseding AD. 

### 5. PreviouslyApprovedAMOCs.



### a. I have a previously approved AMOC that applies to my aircraft. I was not the originalAMOC requester, butitis transferable. Do I need to obtain ACO, directorate, or company DER approvalbefore using it on my aircraft? No. However, you are responsible for notifying yourPI (or lacking a PI, your local FSDO) beforeyou use it. 

### b. How can I find outwho has an AMOC to an AD? Each AD identifies the office that initiated the AD. That office canprovide information about AMOCs ithas already approved.



### c. Can another owner/operatoruse my AMOC? Only if

### it is transferable and youmake it available to them. The AMOC can only be used for the specific AD and paragraph(s) cited in the AMOC approval document. The owner/operator must ascertain that the AMOC applies to their product (that is, to the model and serial number), whether they can meet any restrictions identified, and that they can accomplish the specific instructions in the AMOC. They are also responsible for notifying their PI (or lacking a PI, their local FSDO) before using the AMOC. 

### d. TheDAH ofmy aircraftreceived a global AMOC for the engineering aspects of their service document. Do I need to request another AMOC ifI use the same service document? No, but ifyou usethe service document as anAMOC, you are responsible for notifying your PI (or lacking a PI, your local FSDO) before using it.



### A-409/28/2007



### e. Is there a fee for using AMOCs? 8110.103 Appendix A

We don't charge fees to use AMOCs. However, some AMOC holders may charge fees for allowing others to use their AMOC procedures. AMOCs can refer to specific accomplishment instructions, inspection methods, and components that are proprietary. Ifso, contactthe person or organization with the approved AMOC and arrange to obtain the information and components you will need to accomplish the AMOC. 

### 6. AD Compliance Before Delivery.


### a. TheDAH (or production approval holder (PAH)) delivered my aircraft with AD status records (indicating compliancewith all applicable ADs). Do I still need to get AMOCs forthese ADs?

. No. AMOCs are not necessary ifthe AD status records showthat all ofthe applicable ADs were complied with. Note that there might be recurring or terminating AD actions that are not yet due. To continue operating the aircraft, you are responsible for complying with these actions before they become due

... 

### b. I justreceived my aircraft, but cannot get an AD status record from the DAH (or PAH). AD :XXXX-XX-XX applies to it. Do I need to take action? Yes. Before flying the aircraft, you must either comply withthe AD as written, or obtain and implement your own AMOC. 

### 7. ReturningAircraft to Service

.. 

### a. How do I return my aircraft to service after receiving an AMOC? You may return your aircraft to service after receiving an AMOC only ifyou record the AMOC inyour aircraft maintenance records as your method ofcompliance withthe AD. Annotate the maintenance records as follows: (1) AMOC approval letter from the [XXX] ACO (or Directorate) Manager dated [MM-DD-YYYY], or (2) AMOC approval, FAAForm 8110-3, "Statement ofCompliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations," dated [MM-DD-YYYY] from [company DERname and employer], or (3) AMOC approval, FAA Form 8100-9, "Statement ofCompliance with Airworthiness Standards," dated [MM-DD-YYYY] from [delegated organization staffmember's name and employer], or (4) Global AMOC approval letter from the 

### [XXX] ACO (or Directorate) Manager to [third party name], dated [MM-DD-YYYY].

### 09/28/2007 8110.103 Appendix A Note thatyou are responsible for notifying your PI (or lacking a PI, your local FSDO) before you useanAMOC. b. Do I need to keep a copy ofthe AMOC approval document for my records? 

### Yes. All owners/operators must keep a copy ofthe AMOC approval document (an AMOC approval letter, FAA Form 8110-3, or FAA Form 8100-9). This record should include any referenced attachments.or procedures until ownership ofthe product is transferred. These records must be readily accessible to FAA inspectors orNational Transportation Safety Board investigators upon their request. An exception is that, for a global AMOC, you would not need to keep a copy ofthe approval letter.

A-609/28/2007



### Appendix B. Administrative Information 8110.103 Appendix B



### 1. Distribution. Distribute this order to the Washington headquarters division and branch levels ofthe Aircraft Certification Service and Flight Standards Service. to the headquarters division and regional divisions ofthe Flight Standards Service, to aircraft evaluation groups. to all Aircraft Certification Service directorates and certification offices and branches, manufacturing inspection offices (MIO), manufacturing inspection district offices (MIDO), manufacturing inspection satellite offices (MISO). all flight standards district offices (FSDO), aircraft certification and airworthiness branches ofthe FAA Academy, and the FAA International Policy Office. AIR-40. 

### 2. Related Federal Regulations and Publications.

• 14 CFR 

### §§ 39.7, 39.15, 39.19 and 39.21

• FAA advisory circular (AC) 20-114, 

### Manufacturers' Service Documents

• AC 39-7,

### AirworthinessDirectives

• AC 43-9,

### Maintenance Records

• AC 120-16,

### Air CarrierMaintenance Programs

• AC 120-77,

### Maintenance andAlteration Data

• FAA Manual FAA-IR-M 8040.1,

### Airworthiness Directives Manual

• FAA Order 8040.1,

### Airworthiness Directives

• FAA Order 8100.8,

### Designee Management Handbook

• FAA Order 8100.9,

### DAS, DOA, andSFAR 36Authorization Procedures

• FAA Order 8100.15, 

### Organization DesignationAuthorization Procedures

• FAA Order 8110.37, 

### DesignatedEngineering Representative Handbook

• FAA Order 8300.10,

### Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook

3. Suggestions for Improvement. Ifyoufind any deficiencies, need clarification, orwantto suggest improvements to this directive, send a copy ofFAAForm 1320-19, Directive Feedback Information (written or electronically) to the Aircraft Certification Service, Planning and Financial Resources Management Branch, AIR-530, Attention: Directives Management Officer.

B-109/28/2007 8110.103 AppendixB Youmay also send a copy to the Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, Attention: Comments to Order 8110.103. Ifyou urgently need an interpretation, contact the Delegation and Airworthiness Programs Branch, AIR-140, at (405) 954-4103. Always use FAA Form 1320-19 to follow up each verbal conversation. 

### 4. Records Management. See Orders 0000.1, 

### FAA StandardSubject Classification System; 1350.14, 

### Records Management; and 1350.15,

### Records, Organization, Transfer andDestruction Standards; oryour office Records Management Officer or Directives Officer for guidance regarding retention or disposition ofrecords.

/

B-2[Federal Register: May 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 87)] [Rules andRegulations] [Page 21251-21254] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07my09-4]

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFRPart39

. 

# l:J>IOOC E>Nil-JV3H ZlOZ 0 llJO

# 03/\1303~

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1070; DirectorateIdentifier 2008-NM-087-AD; Amendment39-15893; AD 2009-09-07]

. RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives;.BoeingModel 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and-500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: FederalAviationAdministration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Fmalrule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Boeing Model 737-100,- 200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. For all airplanes, this AD requires repetitive overhaul ofthe retract actuatorbeam ofthe main landing gear (MLG). Forcertain airplanes, this AD requires repetitive inspections for damage oftheretract actuatorbeam, and related investigative and corrective actions ifnecessary. This AD results fi;om reports ofbrokenretract actuatorbeams ofthe Jv.ILG and. the subsequent failure ofthe MLG to fully retract. We are issuing this AD to detect and correctbrokenretract actuatorbeams ofthe MLG, which could cause damage to the beam arm, . hydraulic tubing, and.flight control cables. Damage to the flight control cables couldresultinloss of control ofthe airplane. · DATES: This AD is effective June 11, 2009. TheDirector ofthe Federal Register approvedthe incorporationbyreference ofa certain publicationlisted in the AD as ofJune 11, 2009. ADDRESSES: For service information identified inthis AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-9990; fax 206-.766-5682; e-mail DDCS@boeing.com; Internethttps://www.myboeingfleet.com. Examiningthe AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov; orin person at the DocketManagementFacilitybetween 9 a.m. and 5p.m., Monday throughFriday, exceptFederal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document 1

## f:--: Management Facility, U.S. Department ofTransportation, DocketOperations, M-30, WestBuilding Ground Floor, RoomW12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FORFURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6440; fax (425) 917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Discussion We**is~ued** a notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFRpart 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to all BoeingModel 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,-400, and -500 series airplanes. ThatNPRM was published inthe FederalRegister on October 8, 2008 (73 FR58906). For all airplanes·, that NPRMproposed to require repetitive overhaul ofthe retract' actuatorbeam ofthe main landing gear (MLG). Forcertain airplanes, thatNPRMproposed to require repetitive inspections for damage oftheretract actuatorbeam, and related investigative and corrective actions ifnece_ssary. · Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We consideredthe comments received from the commenters. Supportfor theNPRM Boeing concurs with the contents ofthe NPRM. Request To Change Overhaul Requirements Continental Airlines (CAL) asks that we notmandate overhaul ofthe retract actuatorbeamusing the instructions specified in the AccomplishmentInstructions ofBoeing Service Bulletin 737- 32Al355, Revision 2, datedMarch 5, 2008. CAL states that the.reason for release ofBoeing Service Bulletin 73.7-32A1355, Revision 2,-is Boeing's concernregarding shop process deficiencies at some repairfacilities where correct overhaul procedures were notfollowed. CAL fmds this reasoning detrimental to all operators that follow correct overhaulprocedures attheirrepair facilities. CALlanding gearcomponents, including the retract actuatorbeams ofthe left and rightmain landing gear, are time controlledperthe Boeing 737-300/-500 Maintenance Program andare scheduledto be overhauled at 10-year intervals at an FAA-approvedlanding gear overhaul facility. CAL also makes the following recommendations regardingBoeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision2: The stripping ofall chrome andnickel plating specified in Step 4 ofFigure 2 should be included as an option, as intheBoeing 737 ComponentMaintenanceManual (CMM), Section 32-00-05. Thenital etchinspection ofmachined surfaces specified only in Step 9 ofFigure 2 should notbe limited to machined surfaces. • · The stress relieving ofthepart specified in Step 10 ofFigure 2 should be an optional step, as specifiedin Boeing 737 CMM,·section 32-00-05. • The shotpeening ofthe entire part specifiedin Step 12 ofFigure 2 shouldbe limited to the machined areas ofthepart since the geometry ofthe actuatorbeam does not allow for effective shot peening ofthe entire area. A cautionnote for arc burns associated with grounding (similar to Step 14) shouldbe included in Step 13 ofFigure 2. 2**.---~-------~~~~----~------------------~---------------**

,•' 

### 1------ (_

_____
We disagree that using the instructions specified in the AccomplishmentInstructions ofBoeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, to perform the overhaul ofthe retract actuatorbeam should notbemandated. Revision 2 ofBoeing ServiceBulletin 737-32Al355 references improved overhaul procedures, and thoseprocedures are requiredby this AD. However, according to the provisions ofparagraph (i) ofthis AD, wemay approve arequest for using different overhaul proceduresifthe request includes data thatprove that thoseprocedures wouldprovide an acceptable level ofsafety. We havenot changed the AD in this regard. We acknowledge the request for changes to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2. Atthepresent time, Boeinghas notissued a revised servicebulletin with the changes. However, if Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, is revised after issuance ofthis AD, we might .consider approving the revised service bulletin as an alternative method ofcompliance (AMOC) with the requirements ofthis AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Conclusion Wereviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety andthepublic interestrequire adopting the AD as proposed. Costs ofCompliance We estimate that this AD affects 652 airplanes ofU.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to complywith this AD. ·

Action/ Airplane Work Average Group hours labor rate per hour Overhaul for 64 $80 Group 1; Configurations 1, 2, and3 Inspectionfor 1 $80 Group 1, Configuration 3 Authorityfor This Rulemaldng Estimated Costs
Parts Costper Cost _product
None $5,120, per overhaul cycle None $80, per inspection cycle Number ofU.S.- Fleet cost registered airplanes 652 $3,338,240

525 $42,000

Title 49 ofthe United States Code specifies theFAA's authority to issuerules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority ofthe FAA Administrator. "Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs," describes inmore detail the scope ofthe Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in "Subtitle VII, PartA, SubpartTII, Section

### 44701: General requirements." Underthat section, Congress charges the FAAwithpromoting safe flight ofcivil aircraft in air commercebyprescribing regulations forpractices, methods, and procedures the. Administratorfinds necessaryfor safety inair commerce. This regulation is within the .scope ofthat authority because itaddresses an unsafe condition thatis likely to existordevelop on products identified in this rulemalcing action. ·

3"( 

# __ I RegulatoryFindings This ADwill nothave federalism. implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD 

### will not have a substantial direct effect onthe States, onthe relationship betweenthe national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Forthe reasons discussed above, I ce1tify that this AD: (1) Is not a "significantregulatory action" underExecutive Order 12866, (2) Is not a 11significantrule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive ornegative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act. You canfmd ourregulatory evaluation and the estimated costs ofcompliance inthe AD Docket. ListofSubjects in 14 CFRPart 39 Airtransportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporationbyreference, Safety. Adoption oftheAmendment

. Accordingly, undertlie authority delegated to mebythe Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFRpart

39 as follows: PART39-AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113,44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The"FAA amends§ 39.13 by adding the following newAD:

4l_, -/


### FAA Aircraft Certification Service 

### (_ 

## AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE www.faa.gov/aircra.ft/safety/alerts/ www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/advanced.html i009-09-07 Boeing: Amendment 39-15893. DocketNo. FAA-2008-1070; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-087-AD.

. Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 11, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,-400, and -500 series airplanes, certificatedin any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from reports ofbrokenretract actuatorbeams ofthe main landing gear (MLG) andthe subsequent failure ofthe MLG to fully retract. We are issuing this AD to detect and correctbroken retract actuator beams ofthe MLG, which couldresultin damage to the beam arm, hydraulic tubing, and flight control cables. Damage to the flight control cables couldresultin loss of control ofthe airplane. Compliance (e) Complywiththis AD withinthe compliance times specified, ullless already done. Inspection and RelatedInvestigative and CorrectiveActions/Overhaul (f) Except as providedbyparagraphs (g) and (h) ofthis AD: At the applicable times specified in. paragraph l.E. ofBoeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated March5, 2008, inspect for damage ofthe retract actuatorbeam ofthe MLG and overhaul the retract actuatorbeam, as applicable, by doing all the applicable actions specified intheAccomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008. Do all applicablerelated investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeatthe applicable inspection or overhaul thereafter atthe applicable time specified inparagraph I.E. ofBoeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008. Exceptions to ServiceInformation (g) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision2, datedMarch 5, 2008, specifies a compliancetime after"* * * the date onthis servicebulletin," this AD requires compliancewithinthe specified compliancetime after the effective**da~e** ofthis AD.

5(_' · .. 

### (
(h) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, specifies that the actions are for airplanes withnew MLGretract actuator beams that have notbeen overhauled having partnumber (PIN) 65-46108-15 and subsequent dash numbers; and new oroverhauled MLG retract actuatorbeams having

### PIN 65-46108-14 andprevious dash numbers. However, this AD is not limited to new oroverhauledbeams. This.AD requires thatthe actions required byparagraph (f) ofthis AD be done on airplanes with any MLG retract actuatorbeamhaving those PINs. Alt.ernative Methods ofCompliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, ifrequested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send inform!ltion to ATTN: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, SeattleAircraft Certification Office, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6440; fax (425) 917-6590; or e-mail informationto**9-ANM-Seattle-A~O** AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. (2) To request a differentmethod ofcompliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow theprocedures in 14 CFR39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which theAMOC applies, notify yourprincipal maintenanceinspector (PMI) orprincipal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, orlacking aprincipal inspector, yourlocal Flight Standards District Office. (3) AnAMOC thatprovides an acceptable level ofsafetymay be used for anyrepairrequiredby this AD, ifitis approved by an AuthorizedRepresentative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes DelegationOptionAuthorization Organization who has been authorizedbythe Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. Forarepairmethod to be approvedthe repairmustmeetthe certificationbasis ofthe airpla?-e, and the approvalmust specificallyrefer to this AD. MaterialIncorporated byReference (j) Youmust use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) TheDirectorofthe FederalRegister approved'the incorporationbyreference ofthis service informationunder 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFRpart51. (2) For service informationidentified inthis AD, contactBoeing CommercialAirplanes, P.0. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-9990; fax 206-766-5682; e-mail DDCS@boeing.cm;n; Internethttps://www.myboeingfl.eet.com. (3) Youmayreview copies ofthe service information at theFAA, TransportAirplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,. SW., Renton,·Washington. Fori11.formation onthe availability ofthis material at theFAA, call425-227-1221 or425-227-1152. (4) Youmay also review copies ofthe service information thatis incorporatedbyreference atthe Na.tional Archives andRecords Administration (NARA). Forinformation on tl;le availability ofthis material at NARA, cal1202-741-6030,.or go.to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_ federal_regulations/ibr _locations.html. · Issued inRenton, Washington, onApril 22, 2009. StephenP. Boyd, Acting Manager, TransportAirplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

6

# ·o
U.S. Department OfTransportation FederalAviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, ,Washington 98057 Tel: (425) 227-2167 Fax: (425) 227-1007 karen.davis.huber@faa.gov SERVED: November 23,2011 FAA CaseNo. 2011NM010051 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ·TO: Matt Yerbic President AviationTechnical Services Inc. 3100 1121 h Street SW Everett, WA 98204-3500


### ORDERASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY On October 26, 2011, Aviation Technical Services, Inc. was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposedto assess a civil penalty in the amount of$22,500. After consideration ofall the available information, it has been determined that: 1. AviationTechnical s'ervices, Inc. (ATS) is now and at all times mentionedhereinwas the holder ofApproved Repair Station Certificate No. HN6R593N. 2. DuringMarch 2011, ATS.personnel conducted maintenance for SouthwestAirlines oncivil aircraft N493WN, a Boeing 737-7H4 which included a lightning strike inspection. 3. N493WN at all times mentioned herein was operated by Southwest Airlines (Operating Certificate No. SWAA304A), an air carrier with a Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) under Part 121. 4. The Southwest Airlines (SWA) Maintenance Procedures Manual (MPM), which is the SW A CAMP document for the 737-7H4, provides at 05-10-03 that lightning strike inspections shall be completed and documented perthe applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), and provides examples ofhowto documentthose inspections. 5. The SWA MPM provides at 05-02-01, 05-7 at ParagraphS that all maintenance documentationmustbe properly completed priorto anaircraft's returnto service.Aviation Technical Services, Inc.-FAA CaseNo. 20IINMO 10051 November23,2011 Page2

6. AMM Task 05-41-19 -210-801 provides instructions onhowto examine external and internal areas for lightning strike damage. AMM 05-51-19, step 2 D 9(a) requires an operational checkofthe anti-collision lights inaccordance with AMM Task 33-44- 00-710-801. AMM Task 33-44-00-710-801 requires for each anti-collision: lightto be operated inredO! white mode andto flash for 40 to 45 times perminute. 7. ATS failed to complete and document AMM 05-51-19, step 2 D 9(a). 8. AMMTask 05-41-19 -210-801 provides instructions onhowto examine external and internal areas for lightning strike damage. AMM 05-51-19, step 2 D 9(b) required an ope,rational check ofthe emergency exit lights per AMMTask 33-151-00-710-801. AMMTask 33-44-00-710-801 requires for eachemergency lightto be checked. 9. ATS failed to complete and document AMM 05-51-19, step 2 D 9(b). 10. ATS approved N493WN for return to service onor about March 30,201

### L
11. ATS's failure to accomplish and document the lightning strike inspection on N493WN as provided inthe AMM and MPM violated th,e SWA MPM andthe SWA CAMP. Byreason ofthe foregoing circumstances, ATS violated Section 145.205(a) ofthe Federal AviationRegulations (14 C.P.R.§ 145.205(a)), inthat ATS performed maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations for an air carrier or commercial operatorthathas a continuous airworthiness maintenance programunder Part 121 orPart 135 and did notfollow the air carrier's orcommercial operator's program and applicable sections ofits maintenance manual. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuantto 49 U.S.C. §§ 46301(a) and (d), that ATS be and hereby is**assess~d**

## acivil penalty inthe amount of$22,500. Wehereby acknowledge receipt ofATS's checkinthe amount of$22,500 CheckNo. 429971, datedNovember 17,2011,which we accept infull settlement ofthis matter. ATS may considerthis matter closed.Aviation Technical Services, Inc.-FAACase No. 2011NM010051 November 23,2011 Page3 

### IfATS has any questions regarding this Order, please contact FAA attorney Karen D. Huber at telephone number (425) 227-2167. DWIGHT S. WILLIAMS Regional Counsel

By:

# ~-¢!!14. Karen Davis Huber · FAA Attorney KDH/ds
cc: Dane B. 

### Jaques, Esq. Dombroff, Gilmore, Jaques & 

### French, PC 

### 1676 International Drive, Penthouse McLean, VA 22102

# 0
U.S. Department OfTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming 1601 LindAvenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Tel: (425) 227-2167 · Fax: (425) 227-1007 karen.davis.huber@faa.gov SERVED:·November 23,2011 FAA Case No. 2011NM010062 VIAFIRST-CLASS AND CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURNRECEIPT REQUESTED TO: MattYerbic President AviationTechnical Services Inc. 3100**11i~** Street SW Everett, WA 98204-3500


### ORDERASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY
On October 25,2011, Aviation Technical Services, Inc. was advisedthrough a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty thattheFAAproposedto assess a civil penalty inthe amount of $27,500. After consideration ofall the available information, ithas been determinedthat: 1. AviationTechnical Services, Inc. (ATS) is now, arid at all times mentionedherein was, the holder ofRepair Station CertificateNo. HN6R593N. 2. On or about May 12, 2011, ATS personnel conducted maintenance for Alaska Airlines (ASAA) (an air carrierhaving a continuous airworthiness maintenance programunder Part 121) oncivil aircraftN769AS, a Boeing 737-4Q8.
3. TheASAA Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) includes the General Procedures Manual (GPM) and ASAAMaintenance and InspectionProgram.

· 4. The ASAAMaintenance and InspectionProgram includes Maintenance Work/Task Cards which are developed by the ASAAMaintenance Programs Department. 5. As part ofthe maintenance conducted onN769AS, ATS personnel installed an overhead distribution duct for cabinheating and air conditioning between Body Stations 440 and 500 onor about May 12,2011,using RTV 133 adhesive. 6. ASAA Task Card Task 21-23-25-404-037 contains installation instructions for the overhead distribution duct. Task21-23-25-404-037, Page4 of6, Item I requires thatAviation Technical Services-FAA Case No. 2011NMO 10062. November23,2011 Page2 

### when RTV 1 

### J? adhesive is used in overhead ductinstallation, that itbe driedfor a minimum of24 hours. 7. ATS returnedN769AS to service on May 12,2011, less than 24 hours after application ofthe RTV 133 adhesive to the overhead duct.

. 8. AfterN769AS was returned to service, ASAA maintenance personnel discoveredthat the overhead distribution duct was disconnected atbody station BS 500 

### +14.
9. Inconducting the maintenance described above, ATS did not comply withthe ASAA CAMP.


### 10. Inconductingthe maintenance described above, ATS did notuse methods, techniques, andpractices acceptable to the Administrator.
11. Inconducting the maintenance described above, ATS did notperform the work in such a manner thatthe condition ofthe aircraft, airframe was at least equal to its original orproperly altered condition. By reason oftheforegoing circumstances, ATS violated the following Sections ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.P.R.):

a 

### Section 43.13(a), inthat, when performing maintenance, alteration orpreventive maintenance required by Part 91 oftheFederal Aviation Regulations, ATS failed to use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its Manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator. b. Section 43.13(b), inthatATS performed maintenance, alteration, orpreventive maintenance and did notperform the work in

### such amanner anduse materials of such a quality, .thatthe condition ofthe aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked onwas at least equal to its original orproperly altered condition. ·
c. Section 145.205(a), in thatATS performed maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations for an air carrier or commercial operatorthat has acqntinuous airworthiness maintenance program under Part 121 or Part 135 and did not follow the air carrier's or commercial operator'sprogram and applicable sections ofits maintenance manual.Aviation Technical Services- FAA Case No. 2011NM010062. November 23, 2011 Page3 NOW, THEREFORE, ITIS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 46301(a) and (d), that ATS be and hereby is assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$21,000.
Wehereby acknowledge receipt 

### ofATS's check in the amount of$21,000 CheckNo. 429970, dated November 17, 2011, which we accept infull settlement ofthis matter. ATS may consider this matterclosed.
IfATS has any questions regarding this Order, please contact FAA attorneyKaren D. Huber at telephone number (425) 227-2164. · DWIGHT S. WILLIAMS Regional Counsel

By: 

# kjuLI& JO.'**Mk~** Karen Davis Huber FAAAttorney KDH/ds

cc: Dane B. Jaques, Esq. Dombroff, Gilmore, Jaques & French, PC 1676 International Blvd., Penthouse McLean, VA 22102