10/1/15

 

8900.1 CHG 422

VOLUME 14  COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

Indicates new/changed information.

CHAPTER 3  SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 3  False and Misleading Statements Regarding Aircraft Products, Parts, Appliances, and Materials

14-3-3-1    PURPOSE. This section provides preliminary guidance for conducting investigations and enforcement of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 3, which discusses false and misleading statements regarding aircraft products, parts, appliances, and materials. This section applies to any person who makes a record regarding a type certificated (TC) product or a product, part, appliance, or material that may be used on a TC’d product.

14-3-3-3    BACKGROUND. Title 14 CFR, part 3, 3.5(a)–(d), Statements about Products, Parts, Appliances and Materials, became effective on October 17, 2005. The final rule was published in the Federal Register (FR) on September 16, 2005 (70 FR 54822-54832). This rule bans false or intentionally misleading statements about the airworthiness of TC’d products and the acceptability of products, parts, appliances, and materials for installation on TC’d products. The rule is intended to prevent people from representing an item as suitable for installation on a TC’d product when it is not. Part 3 is intended to ensure that aircraft owners and operators, and persons who maintain aircraft, have factual information to determine whether a product, part, appliance, or material may be installed on a given TC’d product.

A.    Misleading Statements. The part 3 final rule extends the prohibition on fraudulent or intentionally false statements beyond those covered by 14 CFR part 21, 21.2(a)(1) and (2), and 14 CFR part 43, 43.12. In addition, it provides a regulation prohibiting intentionally misleading statements that, if violated, can be addressed by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enforcement action. The FAA is particularly concerned about misleading statements, i.e., those that are not necessarily false, but which contain a material misrepresentation or omission that is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.

B.    Scope of the Rule. The scope of the rule applies to each record transmitted to a potential consumer that makes a representation as to the airworthiness of a TC’d product or the acceptability of a product, part, appliance, or material on a TC’d product. These records include advertisements in printed or electronic media and records regularly relied upon by installers of equipment to ensure the continued airworthiness of an aircraft.

C.    Final Rule Part 3. For additional information, see part 3 of the final rule. The publication may be accessed on the Government Printing Office (GPO) Web site at www.gpo.gov. The final rule may also be accessed through the Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS) at http://fsims.avs.faa.gov. Click on the “Regulatory Guidance Library” link in the left margin and then click on the “CFR Final Rules” link.

14-3-3-5    DEFINITIONS. The following terms have the stated meanings when used in this guidance or 3.5:

A.    Airworthy. The aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation. The definition refers to “aircraft;” however, the prohibitions in part 3, 3.5(b) and (c) refer to the airworthiness of a TC’d product.

B.    Material. A substance of which something is made or composed, as used in a product, part, appliance, or material.

C.    Material Fact, Representation, or Information. The fact, representation, or information is likely to affect a reasonable consumer’s decision to rely on the representation or information.

D.    Product. An aircraft, aircraft engine, or aircraft propeller.

E.    Record. Any writing, drawing, map, recording, tape, film, photograph, or other documentary material by which information is preserved or conveyed in any format including, but not limited to: paper, microfilm, identification plates, stamped marks, bar codes, or electronic format attached to or inscribed on any product, part, appliance, or material.

14-3-3-7    APPLICABILITY. Part 3 applies to each record that conveys information related to an advertisement or sales transaction regarding the airworthiness of a TC’d product or the acceptability of a product, part, appliance, or material for installation on a TC’d product. This guidance is for all FAA Aircraft Certification, Flight Standards (AFS), and Law Enforcement Authority personnel who are responsible for the enforcement of 14 CFR.

14-3-3-9    DISCUSSION. Section 3.5(b) and (c) prohibits false and misleading statements in records, relating to advertisements or sales transactions that represent the airworthiness or acceptability for installation of a new or used product, part, appliance, or material. Section 3.5(b)(2) is intended to stop the practice of providing consumers with false or intentionally misleading statements that indicate a product is airworthy or is suitable for installation on a TC’d product when it is not. This aspect of the code is applicable to everyone who makes or conveys a record relating to an advertisement or sales transaction that represents the airworthiness or acceptability of a product, part, appliance, or material. Thus, it applies to persons who are regulated by the FAA (e.g., holders of FAA certificates), and it also applies to persons not directly regulated by the FAA before part 3 was issued.

A.    Part 3. Part 3 does not apply to:

1)    Records about a product, part, appliance, or material for installation on an aircraft for which the only airworthiness certificate the FAA has issued is an experimental certificate.

NOTE:  If the experimental certificate requires that a certain part be approved, and a record is related to an advertisement or sale of that kind of part for that aircraft, the record must not mislead the consumer as to the status of the part. The representation that a part is approved is a representation that it is also acceptable for installation on a TC’d product.

2)    Records that convey information only about an amateur-built aircraft.
3)    Records that convey information only about products, parts, appliances, and materials that are for military aircraft and are not represented to be acceptable for civil application. Part 3 applies if a record for a military product, part, appliance, or material represents that it is acceptable for installation on a TC’d product.
4)    Records that convey information about fluids. Although a false or misleading record about a fluid could have a harmful effect on safety, based on the complexity of the issue, the FAA will consider other available choices to regulate those records.
5)    Information conveyed only by oral means.
6)    In-house records that remain in house.

B.    Section 3.5(b). Section 3.5(b) does not apply to records made under part 43. Section 3.5(c) does apply to records made under part 43. Section 3.5 can apply to records required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance under part 21, with specific reference to 21.2(a)(1) and (2). However, for fraudulent or intentionally false statements or entries in those records, or reproductions or alterations of those records, the FAA will usually enforce 21.2(a)(1) and (2) instead of 3.5(b).

14-3-3-11    FRAUDULENT AND INTENTIONALLY FALSE STATEMENTS. Section 3.5(b) prohibits a person from making, or causing to be made, a fraudulent or intentionally false statement, or a fraudulent or intentionally false reproduction or alteration of a record.

A.    Violations. To prove an intentionally false statement is in violation of 3.5(b)(1), it is necessary to show that:

1)    The alleged violator made, or caused to be made, a statement in a record related to an advertisement or sales transaction.
2)    The statement contained a material fact about the airworthiness of a TC’d product, or the acceptability of a product, part, appliance, or material for installation on a TC’d product.
3)    The statement falsely represented the material fact.
4)    The alleged violator knew the statement to be false.

B.    Fraudulent Statements. To prove a fraudulent statement in violation of 3.5(b)(1), it is necessary to show that:

1)    All the elements of subparagraphs 14-3-3-11A1) through A4) above for an intentionally false statement.
2)    The alleged violator made or conveyed the statement with the intent to deceive.
3)    The recipient of the false representation relied on it.

C.    Fraudulent or Intentional Reproductions. To prove that a record was fraudulently or intentionally reproduced or altered in violation of 3.5(b)(2), it is necessary to show:

1)    The elements applicable to an intentionally false or fraudulent statement, described above.
2)    The alleged violator conveyed the false representation by means of a reproduced or altered record.

D.    Prohibition Overlap in 3.5(b)(1) and (2). The prohibition in 3.5(b)(2) can overlap with the prohibition in 3.5(b)(1). For example, a person takes a record that states, “The enclosed part is not FAA‑approved,” and alters it to read, “The enclosed part is FAA-approved.” The statement in the altered record is, by itself, a false representation.

14-3-3-13    INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING STATEMENTS. Section 3.5(c) prohibits intentionally misleading statements made directly or through omission.

A.    Intentionally Misleading Statement. To prove that an intentionally misleading statement was made directly in violation of 3.5(c)(1), it is necessary to show that:

1)    The alleged violator made, or caused to be made, a statement in a record related to an advertisement or sales transaction.
2)    The statement contained a material misrepresentation that a TC’d product was airworthy, or that a product, part, appliance, or material was acceptable for installation on a TC’d product.
3)    The alleged violator knew that the misrepresentation could mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.

B.    Omissions. To prove that an intentionally misleading statement was made through an omission, in violation of 3.5(c)(2), it is necessary to show:

1)    The element described in subparagraph 14-3-3-13A1) above.
2)    The statement omitted a material fact and, thus, misrepresented that a TC’d product was airworthy, or that a product, part, appliance, or material was acceptable for installation on a TC’d product.
3)    The element described in subparagraph 14-3-3-13A3) above.

C.    Prohibition Overlap in 3.5(c)(1) and (2). The prohibition in 3.5(c)(2) can overlap with the prohibition in 3.5(c)(1). For example, a person makes the statement, “The enclosed part is equivalent to Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Part No. XYZ,” while omitting the fact that the part is not an FAA-approved part. The statement can be, by itself, misleading, in that it implies that the part is acceptable for substitution for Part No. XYZ on the TC’d product(s) for which Part No. XYZ is eligible.

14-3-3-15    FAA GUIDANCE REGARDING FRAUDULENT AND INTENTIONALLY FALSE STATEMENTS.

A.    Guidance Model. In the preamble to the part 3 final rule, the FAA stated that it modeled 3.5(b) on other FAA rules, specifically 21.2(a)(1) and (2); 43.12; 14 CFR part 61, 61.59; and 14 CFR part 65,  65.20. The agency’s experience in enforcing those rules, which is described to a great extent in the administrative and judicial case law, will be used as guidance in enforcing 3.5(b).

B.    Misleading “Material” Statement. A “material” statement “need only have a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, a decision of” an agency in making a required determination. The elements common to both  3.5(b) and (c) are intended to be applied the same way. Thus, for purposes of both sections, and as described above in this change, a violation will be found if the alleged violator misrepresents a fact in a way that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

14-3-3-17    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC) GUIDANCE REGARDING MISLEADING STATEMENTS.

A.    General. The FTC is authorized to regulate, among many things, advertisements for consumer products. In the preamble to the final rule establishing part 3, the FAA said that it would use the FTC’s approach to regulating deceptive advertising as a model for implementing 3.5(c). That part of the FTC’s authority is found in Title 15 of the United States Code (15 U.S.C.), Chapter 2,  55(a)(1), which defines “false advertisement” as: “[A]n advertisement, other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether any advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual.”

B.    Intent to Mislead the Consumer. The FTC’s evaluation of deceptive advertising cases involves analyses of three elements.

1)    The FTC analyzes whether there was a representation, omission, or practice that was likely to mislead the consumer. In the case of an express claim, the FTC considers the representation itself as establishing the meaning. In the case of an implied claim, the FTC examines the representation, the entire document, the juxtaposition of phrases in the document, the nature of the claim, and the nature of the transaction. The FTC considers that, whenever a product is sold, there is an implied representation that the product is fit for the purposes for which it was sold.
a)    Both the FTC’s and the FAA’s approaches are broad, in that a representation can be made via several kinds of media.
b)    In analyzing a 3.5(c) case, the FAA’s approach can be somewhat narrower than the FTC’s in a deceptive advertising case. The FTC may consider purely oral representations.
c)    In analyzing a 3.5(c) case, the FAA’s approach can be somewhat broader than the FTC’s approach. The FAA may consider the labeling or marking of a product, part, appliance, or material.
2)    The FTC examines the representation, omission, or practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. In determining how reasonable consumers are likely to respond, they evaluate the entire advertisement, transaction, and course of dealing. Depending on the circumstances, truthful information in the text of an advertisement will not remedy a misleading headline if it was reasonable for the consumer to rely on the headline. A claim phrased as an opinion is prohibited if it is not honestly held, if it misrepresents the qualifications of the one giving, or the basis for, the opinion, or if it is reasonable for the recipient to interpret it as an implied statement of fact. An example of the latter is a misleading expert opinion. If the alleged violator primarily makes a representation to, or directs its advertisement at, a particular group, the FTC analyzes the reasonableness of the consumer from the perspective of that particular group. When a seller’s representation conveys more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is misleading, the seller is liable for the misleading interpretation. The FTC is not required to prove that a majority of reasonable consumers were misled. An advertisement is misleading if a significant minority of reasonable consumers are misled.
a)    In most cases of alleged violations of 3.5(c), the FAA will consider what would be the reasonable actions of a consumer who is an aircraft operator, repair station, mechanic, manufacturer, distributor or aircraft owner, depending on the targeted audience(s) of the sales transaction.
b)    In a sales transaction solely between two parties, the buyer is the targeted audience. In a broader transaction (e.g., advertising through a catalogue), the targeted audience is the target of the intended distribution of the representation(s) (i.e., the catalogue).
c)    The FAA will consider the extent to which some aviation consumers are more sophisticated than others and the different needs and expectations of different aviation consumers.
d)    The historical or customary practice of the targeted aviation industry audience can be a consideration in this analysis.
3)    The FTC analyzes whether the representation, omission, or practice was a material one. A material representation is a representation or information that is likely to affect a reasonable consumer’s decision to rely on the representation or information. A material omission is where the omitted representation or information, if it had been included, would have been likely to affect the reasonable consumer’s decision. The FTC presumes that an expressed claim is material since “the willingness of a business to promote its products reflects a belief that consumers are interested in the advertising.”
a)    The FTC considers a claim or omission material if it significantly involves health, safety, or other areas with which the consumer would be concerned. Depending on the facts, the FTC presumes information to be material if it pertains to the central characteristics of the product, including the product’s purpose, safety, efficacy, durability, performance, warranties, or quality. Information pertaining to a finding by another government agency regarding the product may also be material.

1.    With respect to a 3.5(c) case, the first question the FAA will try to answer is whether the consumer would have ordered or accepted the product, part, appliance, or material if not for the representation or omission.

2.    Another question to answer is what was the reasonable expected use for the product, part, appliance, or material by the audience that was the subject of the sales transaction? For example, if it was reasonably expected that a manufacturer needed an FAA-approved part, then a representation that the product, part, appliance, or material was approved material.

3.    Other examples of material representations can include the time in service of a life-limited part, the inspection status of a part required to be subjected to Nondestructive Testing (NDT) (or the result of the NDT), the interchangeability of a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) part for another approved part, the conformity of a part to a part standard, and the existence of a certificate of airworthiness for export for a product that was imported from a country with which the United States has a bilateral agreement.

b)    To prove a violation, the FAA must also prove that the alleged violator knew the misrepresentation or omission could mislead the consumer.

1.    An analysis will likely involve some of the questions and answers described immediately above.

2.    What did the alleged violator know about the needs and expectations of the intended audience of the representation?

14-3-3-19    NECESSARY EVIDENCE. In compiling an Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) to prove one of the violations described above, the investigator will gather items of proof, including records, statements, and/or exhibits, to show:

    The record in question; who saw it and when; where it was or is maintained.

    How the record related to an advertisement or sales transaction.

    How the alleged violator made the statement or caused it to be made; the alleged violator’s intent; the alleged violator’s knowledge.

    Which statement in the record was false or misleading; how it was false or misleading; why a reasonable consumer would rely on the statement.

    Which TC’d product was involved; how the statement related to the product’s airworthiness or the product’s, part’s, appliance’s, or material’s acceptability for installation on a product; how many products, parts, appliances, or materials were involved; what approvals, if any, the product, part, appliance, or material has; what way the product, part, appliance, or material differed from the item it was represented to be.

    For a 3.5(b)(2) case, the record before reproduction or alteration; how the alleged violator made the reproduction or alteration, or caused it to be made.

    A relevant suspected unapproved parts (SUP) report, if any.

    What FAA certificates, approvals or designations, if any, the alleged violator holds.

    What the consumer did with the product, part, appliance, or material; the remedial measures, if any, the alleged violator took.

14-3-3-21    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

A.    Quality Escapes and Production Overruns. Other FAA regulations address most of the implications arising from quality escapes and production overruns. Part 3 only applies to what is in the records that a person uses to convey information when advertising or selling such products, parts, appliances, or materials. If a record is false or intentionally misleading, a violation will occur as long as the record is disseminated for the purpose of supporting or effectuating a commercial sale of a covered product, part, appliance, or material. If a record remains “in house,” there would be no violation of part 3 for a false or misleading statement in that record.

B.    Record-Less Parts. Part 3 does not create a record-creating requirement for selling products, parts, appliances, and materials. The standards for record-less parts exist in other 14 CFR parts. This rule only sets forth standards about the contents of records relating to the advertisement or sale of products, parts, appliances, and materials. Therefore, part 3 does not govern the sale of “record-less parts.” However, if a person creates a record related to an advertisement or sales transaction, to convey information regarding a previously “record-less” product, part, appliance, or material, the record must comply with part 3.

C.    Illustrated Parts Catalogues (IPC). IPCs are integral to ordering products, parts, appliances, and materials, and to communicate information that aircraft owners, repair stations, manufacturers, mechanics and repairmen rely on to maintain product conformity. The very fact that an item is listed in an IPC of a TC’d product expresses that the item is acceptable for installation on the specified product(s). IPCs are not approved documents. However, their contents are TC’d and acceptable for installation. Therefore, IPCs fall within the scope of this rule.

D.    Standard Parts. Part 3 applies to records regarding standard parts. A person may not make, or cause to be made, an intentionally false or misleading statement in a record, relating to an advertisement or sales transaction, that the standard part is acceptable for installation on a TC’d product. A standard part’s status, in and of itself, can imply that it may be acceptable for installation on a TC’d product. For example, a person could misrepresent that their part for sale is a particular standard part, where the person could reasonably expect that consumers install that particular standard part on a TC’d product; such a misrepresentation would violate part 3.

E.    Owner/Operator-Produced Parts. Under normal circumstances, an owner- or operator-produced part would not be referenced in an advertisement or sales transaction. However, if a person later creates a record relating to an advertisement or sale of a part produced in compliance with the exception in 21.9(a)(1)–(6), that record would have to comply with part 3.

F.    Foreign-Produced Parts. For the purposes of part 3, a record relating to the advertisement or sale of a product or part produced by a foreign person and imported to the United States under the procedures in  21.500 and 21.502 (part 21 subpart N) would be treated the same as for a domestic product or part. In fact, each record relating to the advertisement or sale of a foreign-produced product or part, whether imported under subpart N or not, would have to comply with part 3. In summary, the prohibitions in part 3 apply to each record relating to an advertisement or sales transaction that represents the product’s airworthiness or the part’s acceptability for installation on a TC’d product, whether the record is made, or caused to be made, by a U.S. person or by a foreign person. While it might be difficult sometimes for the FAA to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign person, that does not mean the FAA will not use available means to enforce part 3.

G.    Leasing of Products. Both paragraphs (b) and (c) of 3.5 refer to conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction. Conveying information related to a transaction for the lease of a TC’d aircraft or engine is within the scope of 3.5.

14-3-3-23    SECTION 3.5(d).

A.    Not Legally Significant. Section 3.5(d) is not legally significant with respect to the enforcement of  3.5. Section 3.5(d) is redundant in its references to 3.5(b) and (c) and will be removed from the 14 CFR. It states: “The provisions of 3.5(b) and 3.5(c) shall not apply if a person can show that the product is airworthy or that the product, part, appliance or material is acceptable for installation on a type-certificated product.” As originally proposed, 3.5(d) would have required each person making a statement about a product’s airworthiness or a part’s acceptability to show, by records, that the product is airworthy or that the part is suitable for installation on a TC’d product. The FAA decided against adopting that proposed rule.

B.    Redundancy. In the preamble to the final rule, the FAA stated that it was addressing misleading statements with new 3.5(c). The FAA also stated that it was “removing” the requirement to demonstrate that a product is airworthy or that a part is suitable for installation on a TC’d product. Without explanation in the preamble, a modified version of the proposal regarding a demonstration of airworthiness or suitability was left in the final rule as the new 3.5(d). With the adoption of the other provisions, 3.5(d) became redundant since it now essentially states that a person will not be determined to have violated 3.5(b) or (c) if the person can demonstrate that they did not violate either of those sections.

14-3-3-25    COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS. The FAA views those intentional or reckless deviations from regulatory standards, as defined in the Agency’s safety oversight guidance, or deviations from regulatory standards that otherwise present an unacceptable risk to safety, as posing the highest risk to safe operation of the National Airspace System (NAS), and thus requiring strong enforcement. False or misleading statements that lead an installer to believe a product, part, or appliance is suitable for a particular use creates a safety risk. The intent behind part 3 is to remove this safety risk. The action taken by the FAA will depend on all the circumstances of the violation. Consider each violation on a case-by-case basis. These actions range from Compliance Action to enforcement action to criminal investigations.

A.    Compliance Action. The intent behind part 3 is not to penalize honest mistakes or to stifle internal investigations. If a mistake was honest or legitimate, and the person willingly corrects it, document the deviation as a Compliance Action. However, if the misleading character of the statement remains, or the mistake is one in a series of such mistakes, the FAA will presume knowledge on the part of the person sufficient to take enforcement action.

B.    Enforcement Civil Penalty Actions. The ranges for civil penalties can be found in the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program, Appendix B. They will vary, depending on whether the alleged violator is a small business, an individual, or another kind of entity. A violation of 3.5(b) is usually considered more serious than a violation of 3.5(c), and will usually warrant a civil penalty in the higher end of the range. Note that a violation occurs for each misrepresentation. A case involving a large number of misrepresented products, parts, appliances, or materials should be evaluated under the FAA’s multiple acts policy. (Refer to Order 2150.3.)

1)    With one exception, a civil penalty action, where the total amount is under the applicable administrative assessment limit, is processed under 14 CFR part 13, 13.16 and is initiated with a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. A civil penalty action for a violation by an individual “acting as a pilot, flight engineer, mechanic, or repairman” is processed under 13.18 and is initiated with a Notice of Proposed Assessment. Although holding a certificate is not a prerequisite for an individual to be within the scope of the part 3 prohibitions, conveying information in a record related to the advertisement or sale of a product, part, appliance, or material can result from the exercise of certificate privileges or from activities for which a certificate might otherwise be required.
2)    For example, a mechanic (certificated or not) could misrepresent the results of an inspection he or she performed on a part for sale; in that case, FAA would consider the individual to be “acting as a mechanic.” Thus, for purposes of initiating and processing a civil penalty action against an individual for a violation of
3.5(b) or (c), the FAA will consider all of the circumstances of the violation, specifically, how the misrepresentation resulted, if at all, from activity for which the individual held a certificate or could otherwise have been required to hold one.

C.    Other Legal Enforcement Actions. A violation of part 3 by the holder of an FAA certificate for, or related to, the misrepresented product, part, appliance, or material is evidence that the holder lacks a compliance disposition and, thus, the qualifications to hold the certificate. Therefore, a violation may warrant a civil penalty assessment, a revocation of the certificate, or both.

1)    Examples of a certificate for the misrepresented item can include a type or production certificate, or an approved production inspection system.
2)    Examples of a certificate related to the misrepresented product, part, appliance, or material can include a repair station, air carrier, mechanic, or repairman certificate.
3)    An action to revoke a certificate is conducted under 13.19 and Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) 44709.
4)    Injunctive relief for cases involving continuing violations should always be considered. Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO) and AFS divisions should contact their Regional Counsel to discuss the need for a criminal referral in appropriate cases.

D.    Combined Legal Enforcement Actions. An action for a violation of part 3 by a person regulated under another part of 14 CFR may be combined with the related action, if any, for a violation of that part (e.g.,  21.2 or  43.12). A civil penalty action should not be combined with a certificate action in one EIR.

E.    Other Actions. A violation of part 3 by the holder of an FAA approval (other than a certificate) for the misrepresented product, part, appliance, or material is evidence that the holder lacks a compliance disposition and, thus, the qualifications to hold the approval. Therefore, a violation may warrant a civil penalty assessment, a revocation of the approval, or both.

1)    Examples of an approval for the misrepresented item can include a Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) or letter of design approval (LODA), and a PMA. An action to revoke a TSOA or Technical Standard Order (TSO) LODA is conducted pursuant to 21.621; an action to revoke a PMA is conducted pursuant to 21.9(a).
2)    If the violator holds an FAA designation, action to revoke the designation pursuant to 21.2(b) under which the designation is issued should always be considered.

14-3-3-27 through 14-3-3-41 RESERVED.