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 1 0 2011 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HEARING DOCKET 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matters of: 

FAA Case No. 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 of Evidence 201 for 

judicial notice of the following publications or matters of public 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 of Compliance (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 of Repair 

Station Certificate No. HN6R593N: 

a. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011NM010051. 

b. Order Assessing Civil Penalty, FAA Case No. 2011N010062. 

Copies of the relevant pages of these 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 foregoing Motion to Take Judicial Notice has been served via Federal 

Express and/or regular mail this date to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin (Fed Ex) 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey 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 Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202) 493-5142 

Dane B. Jaques, Respondent's Counsel (Fed Ex) 

Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

FAX: (703) 336-8750 

DATED this 3rd day of October, 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 of such requirements. 

The order is used at all levels by agency personnel who are engaged in the investigation, reporting, 

and processing of enforcement actions. It applies to all offices with regulatory responsibilities. 

This revision of the 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 of the agency order on its compliance and enforcement program. 

·!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's policies for determining an appropriate sanction 

once FAA enforcement personnel decide that legal enforcement action is appropriate. This chapter 

contains the general policy the FAA intends to apply in selecting the types of sanctions, ranges of 

sanctions within those types, and specific sanction amounts to impose in legal enforcement actions 

for typical violations of the 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, 

44 726, 44924, 46111, 46301, and 70115. Hazardous materials sanction guidance and policies are 

addressed in Appendix C. 

2. General Guidelines. 

a. Certificate Suspension Action and Civil Penalty Action: Sanctions for Punitive and 

Deterrent Purposes. 

(1) General. If a certificate holder improperly exercises the privileges of a certificate, a 

natural consequence of that act is to lose the privileges for a period of time commensurate with 

the violation. Balanced against this principle, however, the FAA considers the adverse impact 

that a certificate suspension could have on the public. Thus, the agency generally suspends the 

certificates of individual certificate holders for violations. However, the FAA usually takes civil 

penalty action against air carriers and airports because such actions do not disrupt service, which 

may adversely affect the public. Nevertheless, when the FAA determines that safety 

considerations warrant it, the agency will suspend the certificate of any type of certificate holder. 

In no case will the FAA take civil penalty action alone when remedial legal action is necessary 

or appropriate. 

(2) Use of both 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 of time) against a certificate holder for the same 

conduct. If unusual circumstances warrant deviation from this pracfice, legal counsel consult 

with the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement (AGC-300) before initiating the actions. 

(3) Change in type of proposed sanction. The initial enforcement action reflects the 

agency's best assessment of the appropriate sanction for the violations alleged. After initiating 

the action, legal counsel ordinarily does not change the type of sanction unless additional facts or 

circumstances are presented to the FAA that warrant a change. If the action was coordinated 

under chapter 6, paragraph 3, with AGC-300 before initiation, then legal counsel coordinates any 

change in the type of sanction with AGC-300 before making the change. 

b. Legal Sanctions for Remedial Purposes. 

( 1) Indefinite certificate suspension pending compliance or demonstration of 

qualification. Suspension action is appropriate where there is a need temporarily to 

7-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

suspend the privileges of the certificate or rating pending demonstration of qualification or 

compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. FAA generally uses remedial suspension 

when an individual does not voluntarily surrender his or her certificate pending reexamination. 

See chapter 5. 

(2) Certificate revocation - general. The FAA revokes a certificate when a certificate 

holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate. The certificate holder's continued exercise 

of the privileges of the certificate in such circumstances would be 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 of the technical proficiency or a lack of the 

degree of care, judgment, or responsibility, required of the holder of such a certificate. Orders of 

revocation are issued on an emergency basis when the certificate holder lacks qualification and is 

reasonably able as a practical matter to exercise the privileges of the certificate. Legal counsel 

does:not allege a lack of qualifications to avoid dismissal of charges under 49 C.F.R. § 821.33, 

the NTSB's stale complaint rule. 

(3) Certificate revocation- individuals. The FAA generally revokes an individual's 

certificate or rating whenever he or she demonstrates a lack of willingness or ability to comply 

consistently with statutory or regulatory requirements. A lack of willingness or ability to comply 

may be demonstrated by such things as repeated or deliberate violations or by violations that 

involve grossly careless or reckless conduct. Even a single violation may be sufficient to warrant 

a conclusion an individual lacks qualifications. The FAA ordinarily revokes all certificates of a 

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 recent past demonstrating a lack of qualification, or when the 

certificate holder no longer has, and does not obtain in a reasonable time, the personnel or 

equipment to 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 of any airman who has been convicted of violating certain federal or state 

statutes relating to a controlled substance when an airplane was used in the commission of the 

offense and the airman served as an airman, or was aboard the aircraft, in connection with 

commission of the offense or the facilitation of the 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 must revoke the registration certificate of any airplane used in the commission of such 

an offense when the use was permitted by the owner of the aircraft with knowledge that it would 

be used for such purpose. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44726, the FAA must revoke the certificates of any 

certificate holder or an individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in the holder who 

was convicted of~ violation of federal law relating to the installation, production, repair, or sale 

of a counterfeit or fraudulently-represented aviation part or material or knowingly, and with the 

7-2 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

intent to 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 49 U.S.C. § 46111, the 

Administrator is required to issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any 

FAA-issued certificate if the Administrator is notified by the Under Secretary of Border and 

Transportation Security (BTS) ofthe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that the 

certificate holder poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to 

airline or passenger safety. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44924, the Administrator is required, at the 

request of the Under Secretary ofBTS, to suspend or revoke foreign repair station certificates in 

connection with security audits. 

3. Applicability and Exclusions. The sanction guidance table (table) in Appendix B provides 

types of sanctions and general ranges of sanction amounts for violations of 49 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 determined that legal enforcement action is warranted for a violation, FAA 

enforcement personnel use the table and paragraph 4 of this 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 of agency action thatfall outside the scope of 

paragraph 3 and the table. 

a. Decisions to Take Administrative Action (Warning Notices or Letters of 

Correction). An administrative action does not constitute either a formal adjudication of the 

incident or a finding of violation. For that reason, FAA investigative personnel do not propose a 

sanction using the table. · 

b. The FAA's Exercise ofProsecutorial Discretion. The decision whether to prosecute a 

particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigation 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

c. Hazardous Materials Violations. Actions involving violations of the federal hazardous 

materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, or the Department of Transportation's 

Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.P.R. parts 106 through 185. Enforcement sanction 

guidance for these violations is found in Appendix C. 

d. Violations by Members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The FAA is required to forward 

reports of these violations to the Secretary of the department concerned under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46101 (b), whenever the violator is acting in the performance of official 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 in the performance of official military duties, holds an FAA certificate, and the violator's 

qualifications are at issue. The FAA may take punitive action against a member of the U.S. 

Armed Forces for a violation committed when the member is not performing official duties. 

4. Mitigating or Aggravating Factors and Elements. The factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 

4.a. through m. have been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. They 

have proven useful and appropriate for determining the seriousness of a 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 in the 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 relevant to 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 of the Violation. Three elements define the nature of a violation: first, whether 

the violation was operational or non-operational; second, whether the violation involved careless 

or reckless conduct; and third, whether the violation involved any special aggravating or 

mitigating factors. 

(1) Individuals. When an individual who holds a certificate improperly exercises the 

privileges of that certificate, the natural consequence of that act should be loss of privileges for a 

period of time 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 of sanction. 

(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 outweighed by 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 

question the qualifications of any certificate holder, the FAA takes remedial action, for example, 

revocation or indefinite suspension, as necessary. 

(3) Careless or reckless conduct. Violations that involve careless or reckless conduct in 

violation of 14 C.F .R. § 91.13 may warrant more severe sanctions. Carelessness connotes 

conduct that falls below the standard of care or prudence expected of a reasonable person, or 

holder of the relevant certificate, acting under the same or similar circumstances. Recklessness 

connotes conduct that demonstrates a gross, or even callous or flagrant, disregard for safety. 

Aircraft operations that do not otherwise result in a violation of a specific regulation should be 

evaluated in light of these standards to determine whether they constitute careless or reckless 

operations in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13. When a person operates an aircraft in violation of a 

specific regulation other than 14 C.F.R. § 91.13, however, that violation constitutes a careless or 

reckless operation in and of itself. In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation 

of 14 C.F .R. § 91.13 if it actually or potentially endangers the lives or property of others. 

7-4 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

When calculating the amount of sanction based on this factor, a distinction generally is drawn 

between instances where 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 is an independent violation and those 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 Not Deliberate. If a violation is 

deliberate or not inadvertent, a sanction at the upper end of the range or exceeding the range for 

that type of violation generally is appropriate. A deliberate violation generally warrants a 

sanction that is more severe than one that is just not inadvertent. 

(1) Not deliberate. This element means a lack of the degree of deliberation found in 

intentional misconduct. Deliberate or intentional misconduct is 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 it is the result of both inattention and lack 

of purposeful choice. For example, an inadvertent act occurs when a pilot flies at an 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 of choosing not to consult the aircraft's 

instruments or choosing not to use other available means to verify altitude. The test to be applied 

is whether the conduct, not the 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 of experience refers primarily to the type of certificate and ratings held (for 

example, student, private, commercial, airline transport pilot, or certified flight instructor), and 

the number of hours flown, by the certificate holder. Certificate holders with greater levels of 

experience may be held to a higher standard. Thus, for example, commercial pilots may be held 

to a higher standard than private pilots and airline transport pilots may be held to an even higher 

standard than commercial pilots. 

(2) In determining an appropriate sanction, the FAA may consider the extent to which 

the certificate holder's action deviated from the degree of care and diligence normally expected 

of a person with the certificate holder's level of experience. A significant deviation from the 

degree of care and diligence expected of the holder of that certificate may warrant a more 

aggravated sanction. 

d. Attitude of the Violator. 

(1) A good compliance 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 in violation of those requirements might well 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 of investigation, chooses to be represented by counsel, or contests the violation. 

(2) In assessing the attitude of an alleged violator, the FAA may consider the declaration 

of an emergency to air traffic control. When an emergency is genuine and not of the 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 of emergency 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 of good judgment and a constructive 

attitude. When an emergency is of a person's own making, that person's declaration of an 

emergency may be considered mitigating in determining the sanction to be imposed for any 

violations committed, in much the same way it is considered mitigating if a person voluntarily 

reports a violation. 

e. Degree of Hazard. 

(1) The degree of hazard may be increased as a result of the interplay of the operational 

environment (for example, weather conditions, congested vs. sparsely populated areas) and the 

nature of the threat to safety (to the life or property of another, including those in the aircraft 

being operated, to other aircraft, or to persons or property on the surface) that the misconduct 

presents. The safety threat is based on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the 

misconduct. For example, operating 500 feet below the minimum altitude poses a greater hazard 

than operating 100 feet below. Similarly, if an aircraft operator fails to comply with an 

airworthiness directive by operating 1 0 hours past a required inspection, the degree of hazard is 

probably not as great as when the aircraft is operated 100 hours beyond the required. And it is 

not mitigating when a violation does not result in actual harm; that is simply fortuitous. 

(2) The sanction ranges reflect the degree of danger normally inherent in an average 

violation of a regulation, without aggravating circumstances. As discussed in chapter 7, 

subparagraph 5.b., an increase in the degree of hazard may form the basis for exceeding the 

sanction ranges. 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 Other Authority. This factor ordinarily involves the 

following elements: whether the alleged violator'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 

of enforcement action, the FAA takes that action regardless of any action taken by the violator's 

employer. Generally, the FAA does not credit an employer's disciplinary action toward a period 

of suspension the FAA imposes against the violator's certificate because of the different 

purposes of government-ordered, as contrasted with employer-ordered, actions. 

(2) Criminal prosecution. When arising out of the 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 it preclude 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 if that is warranted despite the criminal prosecution. However, the FAA does 

not generally take punitive legal enforcement action for the same conduct, unless it believes the 

criminal sanctions are not sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent for future violations by the 

violator and others similarly situated, or when the FAA wants to establish a violation history 

record. If the 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 of sanction to be sought in the FAA's punitive 

enforcement action. 

g. Use of a Certificate. This factor relates to the nature or kind of activity or operation 

involved at the time the violation was committed. Whether the certificate holder was engaged in 

student, private, commercial, or airline activity bears on the severity of the sanction. Air carriers 

are held to the highest standard of care. 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. Sanction ranges in the table generally represent the normal range of sanction 

for a single, first-time, inadvertent violation. Given the expected norm, a prior violation record 

can be evidence of a poor compliance disposition or of a pattern of disregard for the FAA's 

regulations, which are aggravating factors. As a result, a violation history can justify imposing a 

sanction at the higher end of the normal range or a sanction beyond the normal range. It might 

also justify revocation rather than suspension if the pattern of violation reflects a lack of 

qualification. In addition, a violation history might justify a certificate suspension if previously 

issued civil penalties have not produced the desired deterrent effect. In deciding whether a 

violation history justifies aggravating the sanction or changing the usual type of sanction, the 

FAA considers the length of time that has elapsed between violations, whether the violations 

involved the same or similar regulations, and whether the violations are factually similar. 

(2) The following· actions constitute violation history when they involve regulatory 

violations and become final: orders of amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an 

FAA certificate; orders assessing a civil penalty; findings of violation contained in a consent 

order, order of compliance or denial; and findings of violation made by a federal court. In 

addition, a party may agree as part of a settlement that the FAA may consider alleged violations 

as findings of violation for future sanction determinations. 

i. Decisional Law. Decisions of the FAA decisionmaker represent the FAA 

Administrator's position on issues arising in civil penalty assessment actions, including issues 

regarding sanctions. The policy in this order also represents the Administrator's position on 

sanctions in legal enforcement actions. To the extent that this document conflicts with FAA 

decisionmaker decisions published before this document's issuance, the sanction guidance policy 

in this order supersedes those decisions. However, FAA decisionmaker decisions published after 

7-7 
10/01/07 2150.38 

the issuance of this 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 

should not be unduly harsh, they should be substantial enough to prevent violators from profiting 

from their violations, that is, the sanction should be high enough to remove any profit incentive 

for violations. Penalties should never be permitted to be a cost of doing business. Air carriers, 

in particular, 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 in the law for large and small business 

concerns recognizes this fact. A civil penalty that may be a mere cost of doing business to a 

major air carrier might compel a small air carrier to go out of business. Therefore, the FAA uses 

air carrier size as one means of ensuring a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on each air 

carrier that violates the same FAA regulation. The resulting classification of air carriers by size 

and ranges of civil penalties are set forth in part one of the 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 it knows such information. 

k. Consistency of Sanction. One of the 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 of deterrent or disciplinary value 

to others similarly situated. This goal may not always be achieved, however, because of the 

inherently subjective nature of the exercise of judgment in setting sanctions. 

I. Whether the 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 or her own participation in the same or related 

violations. This special enforcement consideration may range from mitigating the sanction to 

determining that no enforcement action is required. 

(2) If a person is not covered under one of these programs but nonetheless voluntarily 

reports an apparent violation to the FAA before the FAA discovers it, takes immediate action to 

correct the noncompliance, and works with the FAA on steps to preclude recurrence of the 

apparent violation, the FAA may consider such actions in mitigating the sanction for the 

violation. 

m. Corrective Action. The FAA considers corrective action a mitigating factor in 

determining sanction provided the corrective action exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory 

requirements. The amount of credit given in setting a sanction depends on the extent and timing 

of the 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's regulations 

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 after the alleged violator first becomes aware of a 

deficiency but before FAA discovery of the violation ordinarily warrants greater mitigation than 

corrective action that is taken only after the alleged violator receives notice of the 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 of the Table of Sanctions. 

a. General. Sanction determinations are not accomplished through a strict mathematical 

formula; rather, sanction determinations result from a judgment of where a case lies along a 

spectrum of gravity. Ultimately, the circumstances of each case are evaluated in terms of the 

needs of safety and the public interest. 

b. Single, First-time, Inadvertent Violations. 

( 1) Part II of the table specifies both the normal types of sanction (certificate action, civil 

penalty action, or other type) 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 of sanctions 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 that the alleged violator, therefore, has a constructive 

attitude. 

(2) For factors b, d, or h of paragraph 4 (that is, inadvertent and not deliberate conduct, 

attitude, and violation history), the FAA does not normally deviate from the ranges listed in the 

table solely based on the inadvertence of the violation or on the alleged violator's good 

reputation, past public service, violation-free history, or constructive attitude. Any mitigating 

circumstances are to be found in the facts and circumstances of the 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 of the violation, level of experience, degree of hazard, action by 

employer or other authority, use of certificate, decisional law, ability to absorb sanction, 

consistency of the sanction with similar cases, corrective action), to the extent they are applicable 

or relevant. When determining a specific sanction amount within a range, FAA enforcement 

personnel begin with an amount in the middle of the range and increase that amount toward the 

higher end of the range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end of 

the range for mitigating factors. 

( 4) Deviating from ranges within a sanction type. The FAA might impose sanctions 

below the normal ranges based on justifiable mitigation under factors j, 1, and m of paragraph 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 when the following circumstances, relating to factors 

b, d, e, and h of paragraph 4 are present: the violation is other than inadvertent4

, the violator has 

a violation history, the violation involves a significant degree of hazard, or the violator has 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 of Sanction. 

(1) General. The FAA ordinarily does not initiate 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 legal bar to a concurrent 

proceeding to impose another, pursuing both actions solely for punitive purposes usually is not 

necessary. The FAA takes remedial and punitive actions in the same case, however, when 

warranted. 

(2) Selecting types of sanctions. Except in exceptional circumstances, the FAA uses the 

type of sanction 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 

waived by the Administrator). 

6. General Guidance on Multiple Acts or Multiple Violations. 

a. Description of Multiple Violations. Enforcement actions often involve multiple 

violations: multiple violations of a single regulation; a single violation of multiple regulations; 

or multiple violations of multiple regulations. In addition, under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(2), if a 

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 determined by 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 in their consequences for safety and the public interest as to require a penalty 

greater than the sum of the recommended amount of penalty provided for in the table for each 

violation. 

c. Single Act of Noncompliance Resulting in Multiple Violations. When a single 

instance of noncompliance results in multiple violations of general and specific regulations 

involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA ordinarily does not compound the sanction to 

reflect the amount of sanction recommended in the table for each regulatory violation. In 

calculating the amount of sanction 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. 

The ranges 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 of circumstances relating to the multiple violations, including the alleged violator's 

degree of culpability, and whether the alleged violator had taken steps, although unsuccessful, to 

prevent the violations. 

d. Type of Legal Enforcement Action. Where this guidance designates the type of legal 

enforcement action for a single violation, the FAA ordinarily selects the same type of sanction 

for multiple violations of a similar nature. The seriousness of multiple 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 of multiple violations that 

ifF AA enforcement personnel were simply to add the recommended amounts of penalty for each 

flight or day that constitutes a separate violation, the resulting sanction amount could be 

disproportionately harsh for the misconduct involved, in an average case. 

a. Determining Proposed Penalty. To determine an appropriate civil penalty in a case 

involving numerous multiple violations resulting from an initial act or omission (for example, an 

aircraft operated on a dozen or more flights after being improperly returned to service), FAA 

enforcement personnel: 

(1) Identify each initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations 

(for example, improper maintenance plus improper return to service; failure to maintain a quality 

control system). 

(2) Consult the table in Appendix Band the general guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 4, 

on aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the amount of penalty appropriate for each 

initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations (for example, in 

airworthiness cases, a penalty for the act of improper maintenance or inspection; in 

manufacturing cases, a penalty for the act of failing to maintain a quality control system). 

(3) Determine the amount of penalty for the numerous multiple violations by applying 

the guidance in chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.b. through d. Of particular importance in determining 

anappropriate sanction for numerous multiple violations is the degree of the alleged violator's 

culpability for the multiple violations. A lower degree of culpability is present when the alleged 

violator neither knew nor was likely to discover the continuing violations. For example, once 

improper maintenance was done there were no signs of it from such things as discrepancies 

reported by the crew, and no inspections that would have led to its discovery were scheduled. A 

more significant degree of culpability 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 omission remained 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 inspection procedures the 

FAA had approved or accepted; 

• the level of the alleged violator's organization that was aware of, or involved in 

the noncompliance included management (for example, management implemented policies that 

contributed to the violations), although an alleged violator's culpability does not require 

management involvement; 

• the alleged violator has a history of similar violations or a history of systemic 

deficiencies. 

Knowing and willful violations connote the highest degree of culpability. 

(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 Multiple Violations. 

(1) In an average case involving numerous inadvertent, multiple violations resulting from 

a: single act or omission, that is, not one that is covered by 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 in part I of Appendix B. 

(2) The term isolated in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 typically describes a single instance of an 

employee's failure to follow a statutory or regulatory requirement, contrary to the company's 

own practice or procedure. A case may involve a number of isolated and unrelated violations. 

Each group of the multiple violations resulting from each isolated violation ordinarily is subject 

to the isolated, inadvertent ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2. 

(3) Inadvertent failures are considered systemic if they are repetitive or otherwise 

demonstrate an underlying deficiency in the alleged violator's system, practices, or procedures. 

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 

considered to determine an appropriate civil penalty within the applicable range in Figure 7-1 or 

7-2, for the multiple violations resulting from the initial act or omission. Of particular 

importance is an evaluation of the seriousness of the potential hazard caused by the violation and 

the degree of culpability of the alleged violator for the multiple violations. 

7-12 
10f01/07 2150.38 

Figure 7-1. Ranges of Penalties 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 

Figure 7-2. Ranges of Penalties 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. It may be appropriate to select a civil penalty amount 

below the ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2 if the degree of culpability is minimal, the degree of 

potential hazard is extremely low, and there are no other aggravating circumstances. 

(2) Penalties higher than the ranges. It may be appropriate to select a civil penalty higher 

than the ranges, up to the statutory maximums: 

Individual 

$50,000-

$100,000 

$75,000-

$150,000 

• If the alleged violator was significantly culpable in permitting the initial act or omission; 

• If the violations involve significant safety risks; 

• If there was an absence of corrective action by the alleged violator over an extended 

period of time; 

• Where it is necessary to provide an economic disincentive for regulatory noncompliance; 

or. 

• If the alleged violator has a poor compliance disposition or history. 

d. Intentional Violations. When there is substantial and reliable evidence that the alleged 

violator knew of the 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 of an 

aircraft when there is evidence the operator knew the aircraft or flight was not in compliance 

with statutory or regulatory requirements, yet deliberately operated it anyway, is most serious, 

and apart from civil penalties, requires consideration of remedial certificate action. For multiple 

violations in these circumstances, any civil penalties sought may be up to the statutory maximum 

penalty for each violation, regardless of the number of violations. 

e. Civil Complaints. The guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 7 does not limit the amount of 

civil penalties that may be sought in a civil complaint filed in U.S. district court. 

8. Modification. 

a. Type of Sanction. Except when the FAA exercises its prosecutorial discretion to settle 

an enforcement action, the FAA generally does not modify orders suspending or revoking 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 a basis for modifying the amount 

of sanction, but would not ordinarily provide a basis for modifying the type of sanction: 

However, if newly discovered facts raise new issues, such as the alleged violator's qualifications 

to hold a certificate, or if they implicate a statutorily-mandated penalty, the FAA modifies the 

type of sanction. 

b. Amount of Sanction. The FAA does not apply the factors listed in chapter 7, paragraph 

4. in a manner that would double their effect. Once the FAA has fairly considered the relevant 

mitigating and aggravating circumstances, it generally does not modify the amount of sanction. 

The FAA modifies the amount of sanction normally only when new information indicates the 

factors or elements were not fairly applied, or when other clear and compelling reasons are 

articulated. 

9. Special Emphasis Enforcement Programs. At times 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 of industry. When these circumstances arise, the FAA may 

set up a special emphasis enforcement program, designed to focus on a particular area of 

noncompliance on a national or local geographical basis. 

10. Small Entities. 

a. General. 

(1) Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 

the FAA is required to have a policy or program to provide for the reduction, and under 

appropriate circumstances waiver, of civil penalties for statutory or regulatory violations by 

small entities. Under the law, such a policy is to contain certain conditions. Those suggested by 

Congress are: requiring the small entity to correct the 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 or criminal conduct; excluding violations that pose serious health, safety or 

environmental threats; and requiring a good faith effort to comply with the law. The SBREF A 

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 of their 

enforcement policies for small entities and the specific circumstances under which penalty 

reductions or waivers would be granted. Because the statute requires an agency, subject to the 

requirements and limitations of other statutes, to place conditions or exclusions on its 

enforcement policy under SBREF A, 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 criteria be met before an agency reduces or waives a penalty against a 

small entity. Although the SBREF A imposes a requirement on agencies to establish penalty 

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 under the SBREFA. 

(1) The FAA's compliance and enforcement program includes several policies that meet 

the requirements of, and are consistent with the intent of, SBREF A. Taken together, these 

policies constitute the FAA's policy mandated by SBREF A. 

(2) Under the FAA's compliance and enforcement program, 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, provided the criteria in chapter 5 are met. There are two forms of 

administrative action: a warning notice and a letter of correction. A warning notice brings to the 

attention of the regulated person or entity the facts and circumstances that indicate that a 

violation has occurred, identifies the regulatory provision at issue, and requests future 

compliance. A letter of correction is similar but is intended for use when there is an agreement 

with the 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 of penalty in that 

they neither carry a sanction nor result in a finding of violation. 

(3) Under the agency's voluntary disclosure reporting program, the FAA takes 

administrative action instead of civil penalty action against most regulated entities, including 

small entities that voluntarily report certain apparent violations to the FAA, complete corrective 

action satisfactory to the FAA to prevent their recurrence, and meet certain other criteria. 

(4) The FAA's sanction policies have historically provided for reductions of civil 

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 prevent the 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 in determining the appropriate amount of civil penalty. The sanction ranges in Part 

I. Definitions and Abbreviations of the table for single, inadvertent, first-time violations by U.S. 

air carriers and U.S. commercial operators differentiate amongvarious sizes of such entities as a 

means of providing a relatively equivalent deterrent for the same violation against each air 

carrier and commercial operator. While the FAA has not specified S,uch sanction ranges for other 

certificate holding entities, it is the FAA's policy to seek penalties generally relative to the size 

and revenue of the operation for repair stations, manufacturers, airports, and other entities 

holding certificates. 

(6) Although the FAA does not reduce or waive the penalty of an alleged violator solely 

because it is a small entity, the FAA appropriately reduces a civil penalty, or elects to take 

administrative action rather than legal enforcement action, against a small entity if appropriate 

under the policies described in chapter 7, subparagraphs 10.b.(1)-(5). 

c. The Small Business Om buds man. 

(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 of a small business concern that is 

regulated by the FAA provides the small business concern with an information sheet. The 

information sheet informs that entity that it may submit complaints or comments regarding unfair 

FAA regulatory enforcement to the National Ombudsman. The information sheet contains the 

following language: 

Our objective is to ensure a fair regulatory enforcement environment. If you 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 or by 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's National Ombudsman at 1- 888-

REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247), or www.sba.gov/ombudsman regarding the fairness of the 

compliance and enforcement activity of the FAA. The FAA strictly forbids retaliatory 

acts by its employees. As such, you should feel confident that you will 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 Administrator to promote "safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce .... " 49 U.S.C. § 44701(e). As one means of achieving this goal, the statute 

specifically authorizes the Administrator to issue various certificates. These certificates include 

7-16 
10/01/07 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 of these 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 qualified to 

hold those certificates; that aircraft and aircraft engine parts are properly designed and 

manufactured, perform properly, and meet the 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) Because the 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 or reexamine 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 of a certificate issued under [chapter 44 7 of the 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 either the technical proficiency or the degree of care, 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 of a certificate 

holder, but rather whether the violations demonstrate that the holder has never possessed or no 

longer possesses such qualifications. Similarly, suspension until demonstration of qualification 

is appropriate when the agency has reason to believe the certificate holder may lack the required 

competence to hold a certificate and generally when the certificate holder fails or refuses to be 

reexamined. In either case, using the factors normally applied to select a sanction in punitive 

suspension cases is neither required nor appropriate. 

b. Misconduct Generally Warranting Revocation. 

( 1) The FAA has concluded that by their nature, some acts of misconduct are so 

egregious as to demonstrate the certificate holder never possessed or no longer possesses the 

qualifications required to hold any airman certificate and other certificates. Therefore, such acts 

of misconduct warrant revocation of all 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 of alcohol or drugs, or with an alcohol 

concentration of .04 percent or above, or within 8 hours of consuming 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 of any federal or state statute relating 

to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession, transportation, or 

importation of narcotic drugs, marijuana, depressant or stimulant drugs or substances involving 

the use of an aircraft, the exercise of the privileges of the alleged violator's airman certificate to 

further the prohibited conduct, or more than one drug conviction of any 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 other than revocation is warranted. Because 

of the serious implications for aviation safety raised by these cases, however, FAA legal counsel 

coordinates any decision to seek a sanction other than revocation with the Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Enforcement. In addition, legal counsel documents the basis for that decision in the 

case file. 

c. Intentionally False or Fraudulent Statements. 

(1) In general, the P AA considers the making of intentionally false or fraudulent 

statements so serious an offense that it results in revocation of all 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 

on the integrity of the records on which the P AA' s safety oversight depends. If the reliability of 

these records is undermined, the P AA's ability to promote aviation safety is compromised. 

(2) The FAA has handled differently one area of intentional 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) Bulletin No. 90-2, issued on February 6, 1990, the agency's policy called 

for the following sanctions: revoking the alleged violator's current medical certificate, if any, 

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 and any airman 

or ground instructor certificates when the falsification involved omitting information on more 

than one DUI conviction, or a conviction for more than simple possession, or more than two drug 

convictions of any 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 of the privileges of the alleged violator's certificate also can warrant revocation in some 

circumstances. Revocation is appropriate where the totality of the circumstances underlying the conviction indicates 

that the alleged violator lacks the judgment, responsibility, and compliance attitude required of an airman. This 

determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. 

7-18 
10/01/07 2150.38 

No. 90-2, and has concluded that the sanction guidance for fraudulent or intentional falsification 

should be the same regardless of the type of case involved. The FAA has determined that 

falsification in the cases described in C & E Bulletin No. 90-2 has the same potentially adverse 

consequences for aviation safety as does falsification of any other record. In essence, a person 

who fraudulently or intentionally falsifies these records demonstrates the same lack of care, 

judgment, and responsibility as a person who falsifies any other aviation safety-related records. 

To correct the anomaly created by C & E Bulletin No. 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 

Conduct Under 49 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 of unruly conduct by a passenger subject to the provisions of 49 U .S.C. § 46318. 

See also Crew Interference (Unruly Passengers), chapter 4, paragraph 14. They provide general 

guidance only about how to apply the agency's civil penalty authority under 49 U .S.C. § 46318. 

The sanction guidance tables do not supplant the agency's judgment or its prosecutorial 

discretion in evaluating a particular case for enforcement action. 

(2) Whether a particular passenger's unruly act warrants a sanction within or outside the 

sanction range, or in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion a decision not to proceed with 

enforcement action depends on the totality of the circumstances in a particular 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 of conduct subject to 49 U.S. C. § 46318 and the varied facts and 

circumstances within which unruly conduct may occur, may also warrant consideration of other 

mitigating and aggravating factors unique to unruly passenger conduct. Some of these 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 of an appropriate sanction within 

or outside the sanction range. 

( 1) The severity of the unruly conduct. The severity of the conduct may be indicated by 

several factors, including: 

• The physical characteristics of the individual committing the unruly conduct 

contrasted with those of the victim. 

• The nature of the conduct itself. 

• The extent of any injury inflicted. 

7-19 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(2) Whether the unruly conduct occurred when the aircraft was in flight or while 

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 conduct that occurs while 

passengers ·are deplaning. 

(3) Whether the 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) Whether the unruly passenger provoked the situation that resulted in the 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) Whether the unruly conduct necessitated that the flight be diverted from its intended 

destination. 

(6) Whether the unruly conduct necessitated that the flight crew call ahead for law 

enforcement to meet the flight on arrival. 

(7) Whether the unruly conduct was inflicted with malice or in anger. 

c. Additional Mitigating Factors to Consider. The factors listed in chapter 7, 

subparagraphs 12.c.(l)-(3) may justify a sanction below the sanction range, or in the agency's 

prosecutorial discretion, may justify 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 in the context of a 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) Whether the unruly conduct was a reasonable response to a provocation by another. 

However, a passenger's use of unreasonable 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 "Imminent Threat" to Safety 

of the Aircraft or Others on Board the Aircraft. 

(1) The· sanction range at Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p for an act that poses an 

imminent threat to safety of aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft applies when there is an 

imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft or to the collective safety of others on board the 

aircraft. For example, a passenger attempting to open an emergency exit door would be an 

imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft. If the imminent threat to safety is directed to 

7-20 
2150.38 

10/01/07 

specific individuals on the aircraft, then the sanction range 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 enforcement personnel consider whether the resultant 

imminent threat was the unintended consequence of the passenger's careless or reckless act or 

whether the passenger intended the consequences. The former would justify a sanction toward 

the low end of the range, while the latter would justify a sanction toward the maximum range. 

e. Applicable Sanction Ranges for Security Officers or Others Assigned a Law 

Enforcement Function on a Flight (for example, Federal Air Marshals Assigned to the 

Flight). FAA enforcement personnel 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 enforcement personnel 

consider not only the individual unruly acts committed, but also the collective consequences of 

all the unruly behavior. FAA enforcement personnel do not approach the sanction determination 

for multiple acts as a mechanical exercise of multiplying the number of separate acts of unruly 

behavior by a sanction amount in the range for a single act. Instead, they use the guidance in the 

table and exercise their judgment as to the seriousness of the 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 of such requirements. 

The order is used at all levels by agency personnel who are engaged in the investigation, reporting, 

and processing of enforcement actions. It applies to all offices with regulatory responsibilities. 

This revision of the 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 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 of the 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 of Sanctions 

All Enforcement Programs 

Except Hazardous Materials 

Part One - Abbreviations and Definitions 

2150.38 

1. Applicability. This table of sanctions applies to violations that occurred on or after 

October 1, 2007. For violations occurring before October 1, 2007, FAA enforcement personnel 

apply the sanction guidance principles in FAA Order 2150.3A using up to the statutory 

maximum sanction amount in effect at the time of the violation. 

2. Abbreviations. The following abbreviations are used in this Table: 

AP IS means approved production inspection system 

AIW means airworthiness 

A WC 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 

ongoing refusal 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 in paragraphs 6 and 7 (multiple acts or multiple violations) of 

chapter 7. A combination of punitive and remedial sanctions is appropriate when continuing 

violations are ongoing. 

b. Violation committed by a small business concern. Section 503 of Vision 1 00---Century 

of Aviation Reauthorization Act (CARA) amended 49 U.S.C. § 46301 to change the civil 

penalty amounts the FAA may seek for violations that occur on or after December 12, 2003; 

the law sets different limits on the 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 of operation." The Small Business 

Administration regulations implement the Small Business Act and define business concern/as 

B-1 
10/01/07 2150.38 

<4a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business 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 of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor." 13 

C.F.R. § 121.105. The SBA regulations further define small business concern in tables, 

describing each kind of entity by its economic activity or industry, and listing the limit for 

small by annual receipts or, more commonly, number of employees. (The size limits generally 

are established under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).) For the 

complete list, see 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 or the SBA's website at www.sba.gov. Thus, if a person 

meets the definition of business concern and has annual receipts or the number of employees 

within the applicable SBA limit, it is a small business concern, and the FAA will determine the 

civil penalty using the applicable range. Limits for common aviation entities follow (in 

numbers of employees, 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 

Other nonscheduled - $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 or regulatory term for purposes ofF AA enforcement. It includes 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. For the purpose of this table, when civil penalty action is 

recommended and described as Minimum, Moderate, or Maximum, the penalty ranges are 

defined in subparagraphs (1) through (9) of this paragraph. Note that the middle of each 

recommended sanction range would be for a single violation without aggravating or mitigating 

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 of type rating 180-day 

Suspension 

to 

Revocation 

(c) Missed proficiency check or line check 30- to 90-day 

Suspension 

(d) Lack of current experience 3 0- to 90-day 

Suspension 

(e) Failure to have current airman or medical Minimum to Moderate 

certificate in possession 

(f) Lack of initial 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. Other Air Carrier Personnel Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(1) Failure to keep manual current Minimum 30- to 90-day 

Suspension 

3. INDIVIDUALS AND GENERAL AVIATION- OWNERS, PILOTS, REPAIR STATIONS, 

PILOT SCHOOLS, MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL. 

Fig. B-3-a. Owners and Operators Other Than Required 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 of aircraft 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-20 
10/01/07 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 of supervisory or inspection Moderate to Maximum 

personnel 

(4) Failure to maintain.record Moderate to Maximum 

(5) Failure to ensure that correct calibration of all inspection Minimum to Maximum 

and test equipment is accomplished at prescribed intervals 

(6) Failure to adequately describe work performed Minimum to Moderate 

(7) Failure of me.chanic to make log entry, record, or report Moderate to Maximum 

{8) Failure to sign or complete maintenance release Minimum to Moderate 

(9) Inspection of work 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 or properly perform maintenance, Moderate to Maximum Up to 30-day 

repair, alteration, or required 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 of location, 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 SF AR 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-21 
U.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 of this Order. This order explains how to manage requests for alternative methods 

of compliance (AMOC) to airworthiness directives(AD). This order shows how to: 

a. Advise AMOC requesters whether an AMOC is necessary, 

b. Identify who can approve an AMOC request, 

c. Differentiate between a transferable and non-transferable AMOC, 

d. Correctly approve, deny, revise, or revoke an AMOC, 

e. Handle requests for global AMOCs (also known as AMOCs of general 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. ·It is 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 on the FAA's Regulatory and Guidance 

Library (RGL) website at http://rgl.faa.gov or the Directives Management website at MyF AA 

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. An AMOC is a 

different way, other than the one specified in an AD, to address the unsafe condition on an 

aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or appliance. An AMOC must ensure the unsafe condition is 

corrected by providing an acceptable level of safety. 

b. In this order, we use the term AMOC to define an FAA-approved alternative method of 

compliance to the specific requirements of an AD, including a change in the required time to 

accomplish the AD. We also use the term "product" to refer to an aircraft, aircraft engine, 

propeller, or appliance per Title 14 of the 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 CFR part 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(L TO); A-FFS-7(L TD); AMA-220 (7 copies); AMA-250 (7 copies) 

Initiated By: AIR-140 
09/28/2007 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 if it had been modified, 

altered, or repaired in the area addressed by the AD. Another standard provision 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 or Desirable. 

a. An AMOC is required if an owner/operator cannot or does not wish to comply with the 

actions specified in an AD. Appendix B of this 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 limited to the 

fo11owing: 

(1) To accomplish AD actions in a way that better suits an owner/operator's business 

processes. 

(2) An owner/operator devises another or better way of addressing the unsafe condition. 

(3) An owner/operator wishes to adjust the compliance time to an AD. 

( 4) Because existing modifications, alterations, or repairs to a product make compliance 

with AD procedures difficult or impossible. 

(5) To use later revisions of service 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. If so, the office identified in the AD is responsible 

for forwarding AMOC requests to the currently responsible office. 

(1) For products where the United States is the state of design, 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) For products where the United States is not the state of design, the responsible office 

will most likely be an Aircraft Certification Service directorate, or in some cases, an ACO. 

b. Some ACOs have authorized certain company DERs and delegated organizations to 

review and approve AMOC requests for certain AD-required structural modifications, 

alterations, and repairs. See paragraph 10 for more details. 

2 
09/28/2007 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 of the 

requester's fleet and operation) before forwarding it to the manager of the FAA office identified 

in the AD. 

7. The AMOC Process. 14 CFR § 39.19 states that "anyone may propose to FAA an 

alternative method of compliance or a change in the compliance time, if the proposal provides an 

acceptable level of safety." We may approve the proposed AMOC if it provides an acceptable 

level of safety to that required by the AD. See figure 1 at the end of paragraph 7 for the general 

flow of AMOC processes. The steps are explained in the following subparagraphs. 

a. Handling AMOC Requests. 

, (1) Unless we authorize otherwise, instruct AMOC requesters to send the proposal to 

their PI, plus, if they wish, a copy to the manager of the FAA office identified in the AD. If the 

requester doesn't have a PI (such as a design approval holder (DAH)), advise them to send the 

proposal directly to the manager ofthe FAA 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, 

if provided 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) (if applicable), 

and State ofRegistry (ifknown); 

(c) The AD number and specific AD paragraph(s) to which the proposal applies; 

(d) A complete and detailed description of the AMOC proposal, including (where 

applicable): 

• Part names, 

• Part numbers, 

• Part serial numbers, 

• Descriptions of damage (fatigue 

cracks or corrosion), 

• Existing or affected modifications, 

alterations, or repairs, 

• Alternative inspection methods, 

compliance times, and repeat intervals, 

• Technical descriptions of alternative 

processes or procedures, 

• Pictures and drawings, and 

• Other details necessary to define the 

acceptable level of safety that the 

AMOC will achieve. 

(e) Substantiating data showing why we should determine that the proposed AMOC 

corrects the unsafe condition with an acceptable level of safety. Some examples are: 

3 
8110.103 

09/28/2007 

1. Data proving 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 in the AD. 

(f) If the requester wants to change their airplane/rotorcraft flight manual, instruct 

them to submit the affected sections of the manual and the proposed changes. 

b. Approving an AMOC. 

(1) If the office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD has delegated AMOC 

approval authority to a DER or delegated organization, then follow the AMOC process as shown 

in FAA Orders 8110.37, Designated Engineering Representative Handbook, or 8100.15, 

Organization Designation Authorization Procedures, as applicable. See paragraph 10 of this· 

order for more information on delegated AMOCs. 

(2) If the office responsible 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. When reviewing an AMOC proposal, the FAA engineer should review the comments 

received from the requester's PI. If there is no comment or concurrence from the PI, the 

engineer should contact the PI, FSDO, AEG, or other appropriate flight standards service 

personnel for help evaluating any unique fleet or operational characteristics. 

Note: For the purpose of this 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. If the engineer determines that 

the AMOC proposal provides an acceptable level of safety, 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 of a transferable 

AMOC can make the approval document available to someone else who receives a product 

covered by that document. Engineers must be careful when determining transferability, and not 

make AMOCs transferable if the 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 or how the product is used in the aircraft or 

requester's fleet, 

4 
09/28/2007 

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 of Approval. If approving 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 if the 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 of the responsible office (or person acting on the 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 part number(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 on the AMOC, such as applicability, special procedures, 

facilities, processes, or time limitations. 

(5) If applicable, refer to the appropriate service documents by number, revision level, 

and date of revision. 

(6) State whether the AMOC is transferable or not. 

(7) Include the following statements: 

"Before using this AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO." 

"This approval is subject to the following condition: If in the 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 of the AMOC 

following notice to the requester and a seven-day opportunity for the requester to 

comment on the revocation or proposed revision." 

Note: If some ofthe information in paragraphs 7d(l) thru 

7d(5) are contained in the AMOC proposal, you may 

instead refer to the information in the proposal and attach 

it to the AMOC approval letter. 

5 
09/28/2007 8110.103 

e. Denying an AMOC. If the proposal does not provide an acceptable level of safety, 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, (and if the PI agrees) the responsible office can 

instead send the denial letter to the PI with a request for the PI to forward the denial letter to the 

requester. The manager of the responsible office (or person acting on the manager's behalf) 

must sign the denial letter. The AMOC denial letter should state the general reasons the 

proposed AMOC did not establish the acceptable level of safety necessary for approval. 

f. Revising or Revoking an AMOC. Although it should be rare, there may be times when a 

previously issued AMOC must be revised or revoked. As an example, a DAH may determine 

that an action approved in an AMOC does not perform as intended, and provides 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 of safety. 

(1) The office responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD must correct any previously 

approved AMOCs that do not achieve an acceptable level of safety. To revise or revoke a 

previously approved AMOC, the responsible office must send a letter to the AMOC requester 

proposing a revision to or revoking the AMOC. The office must send a copy to the requester's 

PI (or lacking a PI, their local FSDO). As an option, (and if the 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 

approved by letter with the statements in 7d(7), must include the following statements: 

"This is to inform you that we have determined that the AMOC to AD [XXXX-:XXXX], approved by letter dated [MM-DD-YYYY], does not provide an acceptable level 

of safety. This determination is 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]. 

You may submit comments on this proposal 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." 

(3) The letter revoking the previously approved AMOC, for AMOCs approved by letter 

with the statements in 7d(7), must include the following statements: 

"This is to inform you that we have determined that the AMOC to AD [XXXX-XXXX], approved by letter dated [MM-DD-YYYY], does not provide an acceptable level 

of safety. This determination is based on [XX]. Therefore, we are revoking the 

AMOC. 

6 
09/28/2007 

8110.103 

This revocation will become effective on [MM-DD-YYYY]. 

You may submit comments on this 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) In both cases (revising or revoking an AMOC), ifthere is an immediate safety-offlight issue, you can reduce the comment period to 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 

letter to r·et;u«ffiil·er .,.... ___ .,. 

wll!:l OOPY to i"'lf 

IFSDO. as 

.. .~rr-'.ir.~bl-n· 

ACOiOhorJnrrn:te 

tl ral'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>Plf ro 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"'d mrw" 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 of General Applicability). 

a. A global AMOC is a way to approve an AMOC for multiple owners/operators. A global 

AMOC can be useful if the office responsible for approving AMOCs to an AD expects to receive 

multiple requests for the same AMOC. A global AMOC normally covers the entire range of 

products cited in the applicability section an AD. Therefore, rather than 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 or type 

club) for the particular product affected by the AD. If the 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 of the service documents 

are an AMOC to the applicable AD (or particular portions of the AD). The third party can 

distribute the AMOC approval letter and if necessary, attach the related service document. The 

following is an example of when a global AMOC is appropriate: 

• An AD mandates accomplishment of a 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 of the SB in place of the 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 of AMOC letters to a PI or FSDO 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 of a global AMOC applies only to U.S.-registered aircraft. Approval of 

this type of AMOC for a foreign-registered aircraft is the responsibility of the appropriate CAA 

of the state of registry. As used in this 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 of our bilateral agreements. 

9. AMOC Requests From Foreign Entities Where U.S. is the State of Design. 

a. We receive requests from foreign entities to approve AMOC requests for products of U.S. 

state of design that are not on the U.S. registry. Such requests can come from a foreign 

owner/operator, a U.S. state of design approval holder, or another CAA on behalf of a foreign 

owner/operator. We respond to such requests because: 

(1) It's appropriate to give a foreign owner/operator or another CAA technical 

recommendations related to an AD we issued on a product of U.S. state of design. As the state 

of design, we have the most familiarity with the product. 

(2) It can minimize urgent requests for AMOCs in the future. Some aircraft change 

registration often, sometimes during maintenance. A foreign registered aircraft today could be 

8 
09/28/2007 8110.103 

U.S.-registered tomorrow. The importing owner/operator must demonstrate AD compliance . 

before the FAA can determine the aircraft to be airworthy. Our timely 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 of AMOCs for aircraft not currently on the U.S. registry, 

but only the state of registry can approve the AMOCs. We don't have the authority to approve 

AMOCs on behalf of another CAA. If an owner/operator places an aircraft on a foreign registry, 

they must maintain it per the CAA of state of registry'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 Guidance for International Correspondence. 

The template is titled "FAA Evaluation of a 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/ At the AIR page, under Divisions 

and Directorates, select "International Policy AIR-40" At the IPO page, under Job Aids/Policy 

Memorandums, select "Current Memos." If you can't access or have questions about the 

template, contact the FAA International Policy Office, AIR-40. 

(1) Our AMO~ recommendation letters to foreign entities must clearly note that since 

the aircraft is not registered in the United States, the FAA does not have the authority to approve 

the AMOC and that 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 if different, the CAA of the state of registry. 

Contact AIR-40 ifyou are uncertain of the 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 certification basis or other 

known, defined, and published standards. This includes: 

• Certain AD-mandated structural modifications, alterations, or repairs where no 

previous FAA -approved action exists, and 

• Fully substantiated temporary structural repairs, if the standards required by the AD 

are well defined. 

9 
09/28/2007 8110.103 

b. FAA Order 8110.37 permits A COs to delegate AMOC approval authority to a DAH 

company DER. See FAA Order 8110.37 for information on what authorized DERs can do 

within this delegated function. In the company DER letter of authorization, A COs must identify 

the special delegation of AMOC 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 staff members in two types of organizations: 

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

• DAH delegation option authorization. 

d. See FAA Orders 8100.9, DAS, DOA, and SFAR 36 Authorization Procedures or 8100.15 

for more information on delegating AMOC approvals to organizations. 

e. A COs 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 DER delegated 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 · 

10 
09/28/2007 

Appendix A. Questions from AMOC Requesters 

1. Service Documents in ADs. 

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, or individual 

work cards. Do I need an AMOC? 

No, if you transfer the AD language to your own in-house instructions and those instructions 

precisely represent all of the AD requirements and compliance times. 

b. I complied with the referenced instructions in the service document revision 

referenced in the AD before the AD was issued. Do I need an AMOC? 

Maybe. If the AD specifically allows previously accomplished work, you don't need an AMOC. 

If it is unclear whether the work done prior to the AD is acceptable, contact the office that issued 

the AD. 

c. Do I need an AMOC if I accomplish the instructions in a later version of the DAH 

service document referenced in the AD? 

Yes, any deviations from the technical requirements of the specific document referenced in an 

AD will need an AMOC. So, if the aircraft DAH did not obtain an AMOC approval for the later 

version of the service document, you will need to 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 cannot use a different fastener (or any part, material, or process) from what is 

specifically referenced in an AD without getting an AMOC, unless the procedures in the AD 

permit substitution. If you 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 later than required by the AD. I want to 

perform the actions at the later date, per the 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 that I accomplish specific instructions in a service bulletin. Those 

instructions reference a manual, and the manual references a standard practice manual. 

My operating procedure differs from the standard practice manual. Do I need an AMOC 

to keep using my operating procedure? 

A-1 
09/28/2007 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 service bulletin 

instructions. 

2. Changes in the Area Addressed by ADs. 

a. I previously repaired my aircraft structure in 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. If a change to a product affects your ability to accomplish the actions required by the AD in 

any way, you must request FAA approval of an AMOC. Unless you can show the change 

eliminated the unsafe condition, your request should include the specific actions that you propose 

to address the unsafe condition. 

b. During the last AD inspection, I found the crack that the AD warned about. I 

obtained an approved repair from the aircraft DAH, which differs from the repair 

mandated by the AD. Do I need an AMOC for the repair? 

Yes, you must comply with the specific requirements of the 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 if any action differs from the specific requirements of 

the AD. 

c. I developed a repair for cracks identified in an AD using my organization 

designation authorization. May I use this repair instead of obtaining a repair from the 

aircraft DAH, as prescribed in the AD? 

No. Before using any repair that differs from the requirements of an AD you must receive an 

AMOC for the repair. 

d. The AD requires that I visually inspect for cracks. However, the previous 

owner/operator installed a repair doubler that prevents me from inspecting. Do I need an 

AMOC? 

Yes. Whenever you cannot apply the specific requirements of an 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 

show that 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 that I do an eddy current inspection of a structural area. There is a 

repair doubler behind the area that interferes with the eddy current readings, making 

them uncertain. Do I need an AMOC for this AD? 

A-2 
8110.103 

Appendix A 09/28/2007 

Yes. You need an AMOC any time a repair, modification, or alteration interferes with the results 

of a required inspection. This is particularly true when the results of the required inspection are 

questionable, even though you can physically perform the inspection. 

3. Removing and Replacing Appliances. 

a. The applicability section of an AD lists an appliance that I previously removed from 

my aircraft. Is an AMOC required for the aircraft? 

No. You don't need an AMOC since the AD is not applicable to the aircraft without the 

appliance installed. 

b. The applicability section of an 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 specific requirements of an 

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 of software. I did that. Now I have 

received a later version of the same software from the DAH. Do I need an AMOC to install 

this later version? 

Yes. Unless the AD allows installation of the later version, you'll need an AMOC to install any 

version other than that specifically referenced. 

4. Superseding ADs. 

a. An AD supersedes another AD applicable to my aircraft. I had received an AMOC 

for a different inspection procedure from what the original AD called out. Is my AMOC 

still valid? 

It depends on the superseding AD. 

• .if the superseding AD includes a provision that AMOCs to 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-3 
09/28/2007 8110.103 

Appendix A 

If you have any question concerning compliance with the superseding AD, contact the office 

responsible for approving AMOCs to the AD. 

b. An AD applying to my aircraft was superseded, adding a mandatory terminating 

action. It includes a provision that AMOCs to the inspection methods, approved in 

accordance with the original AD, are approved as AMOCs to the inspection methods in the 

superseding AD. Can I perform the AMOC inspection instead of accomplishing the 

terminating action? 

No. Even if an AMOC is valid, it's only valid for the actions specified in the superseding AD, 

not necessarily for the superseding AD as a whole. An AMOC inspection may be an acceptable 

alternative to the mandated inspection (if the superseding AD allows it), but not for the mandated 

terminating action. The terminating action must still be done within the compliance time 

specified in the superseding AD. 

5. Previously Approved AMOCs. 

a. I have a previously approved AMOC that applies to my aircraft. I was not the 

original AMOC requester, but it is transferable. Do I need to obtain ACO, directorate, or 

company DER approval before using it on my aircraft? 

No. However, you are responsible for notifying your PI (or lacking a PI, your local FSDO) 

before you use it. 

b. How can I find out who has an AMOC to an AD? 

Each AD identifies the office that initiated the AD. That office can provide information about 

AMOCs it has already approved. 

c. Can another owner/operator use my AMOC? 

Only if it is transferable and you make 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. The DAH of my aircraft received a global AMOC for the engineering aspects of 

their service document. Do I need to request another AMOC if I use the same service 

document? 

No, but if you use the service document as an AMOC, you are responsible for notifying your PI 

(or lacking a PI, your local FSDO) before using it. 

A-4 
09/28/2007 

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. If so, contact the 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. The DAH (or production approval holder (PAH)) delivered my aircraft with AD 

status records (indicating compliance with all applicable ADs). Do I still need to get 

AMOCs forthese ADs? . 

No. AMOCs are not necessary if the AD status records show that all of the 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 just received 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 with the AD as written, or obtain and 

implement your own AMOC. 

7. Returning Aircraft 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 if you record the AMOC 

in your aircraft maintenance records as your method of compliance with the 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, FAA Form 8110-3, "Statement of Compliance with the Federal 

Aviation Regulations," dated [MM-DD-YYYY] from [company DER name and employer], or 

(3) AMOC approval, FAA Form 8100-9, "Statement of Compliance with Airworthiness 

Standards," dated [MM-DD-YYYY] from [delegated organization staff member'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 that you are responsible for notifying your PI (or lacking a PI, your local FSDO) before you 

useanAMOC. 

b. Do I need to keep a copy of the AMOC approval document for my records? 

Yes. All owners/operators must keep a copy of the 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 of the product is transferred. These 

records must be readily accessible to FAA inspectors or National Transportation Safety Board 

investigators upon their request. An exception is that, for a global AMOC, you would not need 

to keep a copy of the approval letter. 

A-6 
09/28/2007 

Appendix B. Administrative Information 

8110.103 

Appendix B 

1. Distribution. Distribute this order to the Washington headquarters division and branch levels 

of the Aircraft Certification Service and Flight Standards Service. to the headquarters division 

and regional divisions of the 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 of the 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, Airworthiness Directives 

• AC 43-9, Maintenance Records 

• AC 120-16, Air Carrier Maintenance Programs 

• AC 120-77, Maintenance and Alteration Data 

• FAA Manual F AA-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, and SFAR 36 Authorization Procedures 

• FAA Order 81 00.15, Organization Designation Authorization Procedures 

• FAA Order 8110.37, Designated Engineering Representative Handbook 

• FAA Order 8300.10, Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook 

3. Suggestions for Improvement. If you find any deficiencies, need clarification, or want to 

suggest improvements to this directive, send a copy ofFAA Form 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-1 
09/28/2007 

8110.103 

AppendixB 

You may also send a copy to the Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-1 00, Attention: Comments 

to Order 8110.103. If you 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 Standard Subject Classification System; 

1350.14, Records Management; and 1350.15, Records, Organization, Transfer and Destruction 

Standards; or your office Records Management Officer or Directives Officer for guidance 

regarding retention or disposition of records. 

/ 

B-2 
[Federal Register: May 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 87)] 

[Rules and Regulations] 

[Page 21251-21254] 

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] 

[DOCID:fr07my09-4] 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 . 

l:J>IOOC E>Nil-JV3H 

ZlOZ 0 llJO 

03/\1303~ 

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1070; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-087-AD; Amendment 39-15893; 

AD 2009-09-07] . 

RIN 2120-AA64 

Airworthiness Directives;. Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Fmal rule. 

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 of the retract actuator beam of the main landing gear (MLG). For certain airplanes, this AD 

requires repetitive inspections for damage of the retract actuator beam, and related investigative and 

corrective actions if necessary. This AD results fi;om reports of broken retract actuator beams of the 

Jv.ILG and. the subsequent failure of the MLG to fully retract. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct broken retract actuator beams of the MLG, which could cause damage to the beam arm, . 

hydraulic tubing, and. flight control cables. Damage to the flight control cables could result in loss of 

control of the airplane. · 

DATES: This AD is effective June 11, 2009. 

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain 

publication listed in the AD as of June 11, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this 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; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at 

the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 

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 of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We is~ued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFRpart 39 to include an 

airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,-400, 

and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2008 (73 

FR 58906). For all airplanes·, that NPRM proposed to require repetitive overhaul of the retract' 

actuator beam of the main landing gear (MLG). For certain airplanes, that NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive inspections for damage of the retract actuator beam, and related investigative and corrective 

actions ifnece_ssary. · 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the 

comments received from the commenters. 

Support for the NPRM 

Boeing concurs with the contents of the NPRM. 

Request To Change Overhaul Requirements 

Continental Airlines (CAL) asks that we not mandate overhaul of the retract actuator beam using 

the instructions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-

32Al355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008. CAL states that the.reason for release of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 73.7-32A1355, Revision 2,-is Boeing's concern regarding shop process deficiencies at some 

repair facilities where correct overhaul procedures were not followed. CAL fmds this reasoning 

detrimental to all operators that follow correct overhaul procedures at their repair facilities. 

CAL landing gear components, including the retract actuator beams of the left and right main 

landing gear, are time controlled per the Boeing 737-300/-500 Maintenance Program and are 

scheduled to be overhauled at 10-year intervals at an FAA-approved landing gear overhaul facility. 

CAL also makes the following recommendations regarding Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, 

Revision2: 

The stripping of all chrome and nickel plating specified in Step 4 of Figure 2 should be included 

as an option, as in the Boeing 737 Component Maintenance Manual (CMM), Section 32-00-05. 

The nital etch inspection of machined surfaces specified only in Step 9 of Figure 2 should not be 

limited to machined surfaces. 

• · The stress relieving of the part specified in Step 10 of Figure 2 should be an optional step, as 

specified in Boeing 737 CMM,·section 32-00-05. 

• The shot peening of the entire part specified in Step 12 ofFigure 2 should be limited to the 

machined areas of the part since the geometry of the actuator beam does not allow for effective shot 

peening of the entire area. 

A caution note for arc burns associated with grounding (similar to Step 14) should be included in 

Step 13 ofFigure 2. 

2 
.---~-------~~~~----~------------------~---------------

,•' 

1------ (_ ___ __ 

We disagree that using the instructions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, to perform the overhaul ofthe 

retract actuator beam should not be mandated. Revision 2 of Boeing Service Bulletin 73 7-32Al355 

references improved overhaul procedures, and those procedures are required by this AD. However, 

according to the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we may approve a request for using different 

overhaul procedures if the request includes data that prove that those procedures would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard. 

We acknowledge the request for changes to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2. 

At the present time, Boeing has not issued a revised service bulletin 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 of compliance (AMOC) with 

the requirements of this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. · 

Action/ Airplane Work Average 

Group hours labor rate 

per hour 

Overhaul for 64 $80 

Group 1; 

Configurations 

1, 2, and3 

Inspection for 1 $80 

Group 1, 

Configuration 3 

Authority for This Rulemaldng 

Estimated Costs 

Parts Cost per 

Cost _product 

None $5,120, 

per 

overhaul 

cycle 

None $80, per 

inspection 

cycle 

Number of U.S.- Fleet cost 

registered 

airplanes 

652 $3,338,240 

525 $42,000 

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 

Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. "Subtitle VII: Aviation 

Programs," describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in "Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart TII, 

Section 44 701: General requirements." Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting 

safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and 

procedures the. Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the 

.scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemalcing action. · 

3 
"( __ 

I 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism. implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I ce1tify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a 11 significant rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures ( 44 FR 11034, 

February 26, 1979), and 

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of 

small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

You can fmd our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

. Accordingly, under tlie authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39-AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues 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 new AD: 

4 
l_, -/ 

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. Docket No. FAA-2008-1 070; 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, certificated in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from reports of broken retract actuator beams of the main landing gear 

(MLG) and the subsequent failure of the MLG to fully retract. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct broken retract actuator beams of the MLG, which could result in damage to the beam arm, 

hydraulic tubing, and flight control cables. Damage to the flight control cables could result in loss of 

control of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, ullless already done. 

Inspection and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions/Overhaul 

(f) Except as provided by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in. 

paragraph l.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, inspect 

for damage of the retract actuator beam of the MLG and overhaul the retract actuator beam, as 

applicable, by doing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008. Do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection or overhaul 

thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph I.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 73 7-32Al355, 

Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008. 

Exceptions to Service Information 

(g) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, specifies a 

compliance time after"* * * the date on this service bulletin," this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after the effective da~e of this AD. 

5 
(_' · .. ( 

(h) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, specifies that the 

actions are for airplanes with new MLG retract actuator beams that have not been overhauled having 

part number (PIN) 65-46108-15 and subsequent dash numbers; and new or overhauled MLG retract 

actuator beams having PIN 65-46108-14 and previous dash numbers. However, this AD is not limited 

to new or overhauled beams. This.AD requires that the actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD 

be done on airplanes with any MLG retract actuator beam having those PINs. 

Alt.ernative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send 

inform!ltion to ATTN: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington98057-3356; 

telephone (425) 917-6440; fax (425) 917-6590; or e-mail information to 9-ANM-Seattle-A~OAMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, 

follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which 

the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector 

(P AI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by 

this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airpla?-e, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(j) You must 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) The Director of the Federal Register approved'the incorporation by reference of this service 

information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFRpart 51. 

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P .0. 

Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-9990; fax 206-766-5682; e-mail 

DDCS@boeing.cm;n; Internet https://www .myboeingfl.eet.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind A venue,. SW., Renton,· Washington. For i11.formation on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call425-227-1221 or425-227-1152. 

( 4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the 

Na.tional Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on tl;le availability of this 

material at NARA, cal1202-741-6030,.or go.to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_ 

federal_regulations/ibr _locations.html. · 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 22, 2009. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

6 
·o 

U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of Regional 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 Case No. 2011NM010051 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

·TO: Matt Y erbic 

President 

Aviation Technical Services Inc. 

3100 1121

h Street SW 

Everett, WA 98204-3500 

ORDER ASSESSING 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) proposed to assess a 

civil penalty in the amount of $22,500. 

After consideration of all the available information, it has been determined that: 

1. Aviation Technical s'ervices, Inc. (ATS) is now and at all times mentioned herein was 

the holder of Approved Repair Station Certificate No. HN6R593N. 

2. During March 2011, ATS. personnel conducted maintenance for Southwest Airlines 

on civil 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 (SW A) Maintenance Procedures Manual (MPM), which is 

the SW A CAMP document for the 73 7 -7H4, provides at 05-10-03 that lightning 

strike inspections shall be completed and documented per the applicable Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM), and provides examples of how to document those 

inspections. 

5. The SWA MPM provides at 05-02-01, 05-7 at ParagraphS that all maintenance 

documentation must be properly completed prior to an aircraft's return to service. 
Aviation Technical Services, Inc.-FAA Case No. 20 II NMO 10051 

November 23,2011 

Page2 

6. AMM Task 05-41-19 -210-801 provides instructions on how to examine external and 

internal areas for lightning strike damage. AMM 05-51-19, step 2 D 9(a) requires an 

operational check of the anti-collision lights in accordance with AMM Task 33-44-

00-710-801. AMM Task 33-44-00-710-801 requires for each anti-collision: light to be 

operated in redO! white mode and to flash for 40 to 45 times per minute. 

7. ATS failed to complete and document AMM 05-51-19, step 2 D 9(a). 

8. AMM Task 05-41-19 -210-801 provides instructions on how to examine external and 

internal areas for lightning strike damage. AMM 05-51-19, step 2 D 9(b) required an 

ope,rational check of the emergency exit lights per AMM Task 33-151-00-710-801. 

AMM Task 33-44-00-710-801 requires for each emergency light to 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 on or about March 30,201 L 

11. A TS' s failure to accomplish and document the lightning strike inspection on 

N493WN as provided in the AMM and MPM violated th,e SWA MPM and the SWA 

CAMP. 

By reason of the foregoing circumstances, ATS violated Section 145.205(a) of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 C.P.R.§ 145.205(a)), in that ATS performed maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations for an air carrier or commercial operator that has a 

continuous airworthiness maintenance program under Part 121 or Part 135 and did not follow 

the air carrier's or commercial operator's program and applicable sections of its maintenance 

manual. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 46301(a) and (d), that 

ATS be and hereby is assess~d a civil penalty in the amount of $22,500. 

We hereby acknowledge receipt ofATS's check in the amount of$22,500 Check No. 

429971, dated November 17,2011, which we accept in full settlement of this matter. ATS 

may consider this matter closed. 
Aviation Technical Services, Inc.-FAA Case No. 2011NM010051 

November 23,2011 

Page3 

If ATS 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 

Of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of Regional 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 Case No. 2011NM010062 

VIA FIRST-CLASS AND CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

TO: Matt Yerbic 

President 

Aviation Technical Services Inc. 

3100 11i~ Street SW 

Everett, WA 98204-3500 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On October 25,2011, Aviation Technical Services, Inc. was advised through a Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$27,500. 

After consideration of all the available information, it has been determined that: 

1. Aviation Technical Services, Inc. (ATS) is now, arid at all times mentioned herein 

was, the holder of Repair Station Certificate No. HN6R593N. 

2. On or about May 12, 2011, A TS personnel conducted maintenance for Alaska 

Airlines (ASAA) (an air carrier having a continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program under Part 121) on civil aircraft N769AS, a Boeing 737-4Q8. 

3. The ASAA Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) includes the 

General Procedures Manual (GPM) and ASAA Maintenance and Inspection Program. 

· 4. The ASAA Maintenance and Inspection Program includes Maintenance Work/Task 

Cards which are developed by the ASAA Maintenance Programs Department. 

5. As part of the maintenance conducted on N769AS, ATS personnel installed an 

overhead distribution duct for cabin heating and air conditioning between Body 

Stations 440 and 500 on or 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. Task 21-23-25-404-037, Page 4 of6, Item I requires that 
Aviation Technical Services-FAA Case No. 20 11NMO 10062. 

November 23,2011 

Page2 

when R TV 1 J? adhesive is used in overhead duct installation, that it be dried for a 

minimum of 24 hours. 

7. ATS returned N769AS to service on May 12,2011, less than 24 hours after 

application of the RTV 133 adhesive to the overhead duct. . 

8. After N769AS was returned to service, ASAA maintenance personnel discovered that 

the overhead distribution duct was disconnected at body station BS 500 + 14. 

9. In conducting the maintenance described above, ATS did not comply with the ASAA 

CAMP. 

10. In conducting the maintenance described above, ATS did not use methods, 

techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator. 

11. In conducting the maintenance described above, ATS did not perform the work in 

such a manner that the condition of the aircraft, airframe was at least equal to its 

original or properly altered condition. 

By reason ofthe foregoing circumstances, ATS violated the following Sections ofthe 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.P.R.): 

a Section 43.13(a), in that, when performing maintenance, alteration or preventive 

maintenance required by Part 91 ofthe Federal 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), in that ATS performed maintenance, alteration, or preventive 

maintenance and did not perform the work in such a manner and use materials of 

such a quality, .that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, 

propeller, or appliance worked on was at least equal to its original or properly 

altered condition. · 

c. Section 145.205(a), in that ATS performed maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations for an air carrier or commercial operator that has a cqntinuous 

airworthiness maintenance program under Part 121 or Part 135 and did not follow 

the air carrier's or commercial operator's program and applicable sections of its 

maintenance manual. 
Aviation Technical Services- FAA Case No. 2011NM010062. 

November 23, 2011 

Page3 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 46301(a) and (d), that 

ATS be and hereby is assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$21,000. 

We hereby acknowledge receipt of ATS's check in the amount of $21,000 Check No. 

429970, dated November 17, 2011, which we accept in full settlement of this matter. ATS 

may consider this matter closed. 

If ATS has any questions regarding this Order, please contact FAA attorney Karen D. Huber 

at telephone number (425) 227-2164. · 

DWIGHT S. WILLIAMS 

Regional Counsel 

By: kjuLI& JO.' Mk~ Karen Davis Huber 

FAA Attorney 

KDH/ds 

cc: Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff, Gilmore, Jaques & French, PC 

1676 International Blvd., Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102