FAA Rule Says Don't Make False Statements, Or Else
As of October 17, 2005, it is not legal to make false and misleading statements "about type-certificated products, and products, parts, appliances and materials that may be used on type-certificated products," according to the FAA.
The final rule is a new Part 3 in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR). Subparagraphs (b) and (c) are the meat of the new regulation:
"(b) Prohibition against fraudulent and intentionally false statements. When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make or cause to be made:
(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any record about the airworthiness of a type-certificated product, or the acceptability of any product, part, appliance, or material for installation on a type-certificated product.
(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false reproduction or alteration of any record about the airworthiness of any type-certificated product, or the acceptability of any product, part, appliance, or material for installation on a type-certificated product.
(c) Prohibition against intentionally misleading statements.
(1) When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make, or cause to be made, a material representation that a type-certificated product is airworthy, or that a product, part, appliance, or material is acceptable for installation on a type-certificated product in any record if that representation is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
(2) When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make, or cause to be made, through the omission of material information, a representation that a type-certificated product is airworthy, or that a product, part, appliance, or material is acceptable for installation on a type-certificated product in any record if that representation is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
(d) The provisions of Sec. 3.5(b) and Sec. 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."
Probably no one would intentionally make false or misleading statements about aviation products. But, wrote the Aircraft Electronics Association in a message to all members, "the new 14 CFR Part 3 is a critical new criterion applicable to all avionics shops and distributors that sell aircraft parts and accessories." [It applies to any aviation entity, not just avionics shops.--Editor]
New SDR Rule Dead, FAA
Wants `Minor' Changes Saved
After five years of delays, the FAA is proposing to withdraw the amended regulations affecting the service difficulty reporting system. The first final rule was published on September 15, 2000, and since then the rule has been delayed, republished, delayed again, and now finally it appears that the change is not going to survive.
"We are proposing to withdraw this rule," the FAA stated in a recent notice, "to allow the FAA time to reexamine the service difficulty report {SDR] program based on comments received and other developments since the final rule was published."
The original rule change was intended to try to improve the quality of data submitted to the SDR database. But the FAA also sought to minimize the economic burden on the aviation industry. The agency said that it received "extensive written comments" about the proposed rule change, most focused on the costs of compliance. "We have reevaluated the final rule in light of the data provided in the comments and have determined that the costs of this rulemaking may be higher than projected," the FAA stated.
The aviation industry was invited to comment on the proposal to withdraw the new SDR rule, and there apparently was little opposition to the proposed rule withdrawal.
However, this proposal also includes some "minor" changes that the FAA wants to proceed with, "because they did not receive significant comment and will improve the SDR program. These include:
Renaming the titles of 121.703, 125.409, and 135.415 to "Service Difficulty Reports" in order to make the term SDR consistent throughout the regulations and industry.
Replacing the terms "send," "mailed," or "delivered" with "submit," which allows for electronic submission of SDRs.
Increasing the time for submittal of SDRs to 96 hours from the current 72 after an event occurs that requires an SDR.
Changing the submission location so that the SDRs are sent directly to the FAA's Oklahoma City offices instead of to the Certificate Holding District Office.
FAA Targets Outsource Maintenance Providers
The FAA is planning to ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to conduct what it calls "a new information collection." The agency "will use the data from the proposed collection to target those leading outsource maintenance providers that may have a higher risk level, which in turn would merit an increase of FAA surveillance."
The FAA's proposal does not specify what information is to be gathered, but does mention that Part 121 aircraft operators would be affected and the information would be collected on a quarterly basis.
FAA Rule Says Don't Make False Statements, Or Else
As of October 17, 2005, it is not legal to make false and misleading statements "about type-certificated products, and products, parts, appliances and materials that may be used on type-certificated products," according to the FAA.
The final rule is a new Part 3 in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR). Subparagraphs (b) and (c) are the meat of the new regulation:
"(b) Prohibition against fraudulent and intentionally false statements. When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make or cause to be made:
(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any record about the airworthiness of a type-certificated product, or the acceptability of any product, part, appliance, or material for installation on a type-certificated product.
(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false reproduction or alteration of any record about the airworthiness of any type-certificated product, or the acceptability of any product, part, appliance, or material for installation on a type-certificated product.
(c) Prohibition against intentionally misleading statements.
(1) When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make, or cause to be made, a material representation that a type-certificated product is airworthy, or that a product, part, appliance, or material is acceptable for installation on a type-certificated product in any record if that representation is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
(2) When conveying information related to an advertisement or sales transaction, no person may make, or cause to be made, through the omission of material information, a representation that a type-certificated product is airworthy, or that a product, part, appliance, or material is acceptable for installation on a type-certificated product in any record if that representation is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
(d) The provisions of Sec. 3.5(b) and Sec. 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."
Probably no one would intentionally make false or misleading statements about aviation products. But, wrote the Aircraft Electronics Association in a message to all members, "the new 14 CFR Part 3 is a critical new criterion applicable to all avionics shops and distributors that sell aircraft parts and accessories." [It applies to any aviation entity, not just avionics shops.--Editor]
New SDR Rule Dead, FAA
Wants `Minor' Changes Saved
After five years of delays, the FAA is proposing to withdraw the amended regulations affecting the service difficulty reporting system. The first final rule was published on September 15, 2000, and since then the rule has been delayed, republished, delayed again, and now finally it appears that the change is not going to survive.
"We are proposing to withdraw this rule," the FAA stated in a recent notice, "to allow the FAA time to reexamine the service difficulty report {SDR] program based on comments received and other developments since the final rule was published."
The original rule change was intended to try to improve the quality of data submitted to the SDR database. But the FAA also sought to minimize the economic burden on the aviation industry. The agency said that it received "extensive written comments" about the proposed rule change, most focused on the costs of compliance. "We have reevaluated the final rule in light of the data provided in the comments and have determined that the costs of this rulemaking may be higher than projected," the FAA stated.
The aviation industry was invited to comment on the proposal to withdraw the new SDR rule, and there apparently was little opposition to the proposed rule withdrawal.
However, this proposal also includes some "minor" changes that the FAA wants to proceed with, "because they did not receive significant comment and will improve the SDR program. These include:
Renaming the titles of 121.703, 125.409, and 135.415 to "Service Difficulty Reports" in order to make the term SDR consistent throughout the regulations and industry.
Replacing the terms "send," "mailed," or "delivered" with "submit," which allows for electronic submission of SDRs.
Increasing the time for submittal of SDRs to 96 hours from the current 72 after an event occurs that requires an SDR.
Changing the submission location so that the SDRs are sent directly to the FAA's Oklahoma City offices instead of to the Certificate Holding District Office.
FAA Targets Outsource Maintenance Providers
The FAA is planning to ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to conduct what it calls "a new information collection." The agency "will use the data from the proposed collection to target those leading outsource maintenance providers that may have a higher risk level, which in turn would merit an increase of FAA surveillance."
The FAA's proposal does not specify what information is to be gathered, but does mention that Part 121 aircraft operators would be affected and the information would be collected on a quarterly basis.
Print This Page
Email This Page
Archives
Copyright Permissions
