These allegations alone implicate Thunderbird's qualifications. We review legal conclusions de novo but must accept findings of fact as conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. To prove intentional falsification, the FAA must show Thunderbird made a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact in a required record. For this violation, the FAA is not required to show that the false entry was offered to show compliance with an FAA regulation nor is the agency required to show that FAA inspectors were actually misled by the misrepresentation. Fraud and intentional falsification are distinct concepts for purposes of the regulation.
Intentional falsification consists of a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact.
Fraud requires proof of the additional elements of intent to deceive and reliance on the misrepresentation. Thunderbird admits that it did not install A-2043 nuts as represented on the parts lists attached to the work orders. Thus, the question is whether the false statements were material. We are persuaded that they were. By falsely representing that it used A-2043 nuts when in fact it used MS nuts, Thunderbird had the capability to influence FAA inspector's determination that Thunderbird was using only authorized parts and adversely affected the FAA's ability to trace the parts.