## Facts

- Robert S. Borregard held an FAA aviation mechanic certificate and an inspection authorization, which permitted him to perform and sign off annual aircraft inspections.
- Borregard was responsible for performing an annual inspection on an airplane and accurately recording that inspection in the aircraft’s required logbooks.
- In one logbook, Borregard recorded that the annual inspection was performed on **October 24**; in another logbook, he recorded **October 28**.
- Borregard’s employer asked him to backdate the inspection records to show the inspection occurred in **September**.
- Borregard placed stickers over the October dates and entered a September date in the logbooks.
- After Borregard learned the FAA had received copies of the backdated logbooks, he altered the entries again by placing stickers over the September date and entering **October 24** in both logbooks, then sent the revised copies to the FAA.
- Borregard later logged **November 1** as the date the annual inspection was completed.
- Borregard did not actually complete the annual inspection until **after November 1**, making each of the recorded inspection dates false.
- The FAA issued an **emergency order** revoking Borregard’s mechanic certificate and inspection authorization for fraudulent alteration of required records, citing **14 C.F.R. § 43.12(a)(3)**.
- Borregard appealed to the NTSB, which affirmed the revocation, and then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NTSB’s finding that Borregard violated **14 C.F.R. § 43.12(a)(3)** by altering aircraft maintenance logbook entries for a fraudulent purpose.
2. Whether the FAA and NTSB could revoke Borregard’s mechanic certificate and inspection authorization as a lawful sanction for fraudulent logbook entries, even if the misconduct did not show he lacked technical ability as a mechanic.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit **denied** Borregard’s petition for review and **affirmed** the NTSB’s order.
- The court held the NTSB’s finding of a violation of **§ 43.12(a)(3)** was supported by **substantial evidence** and was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.
- The court upheld **revocation** of Borregard’s mechanic certificate and inspection authorization as an appropriate and constitutional sanction given the seriousness of intentional falsification and Board precedent.

## Legal Principles

- Review of NTSB orders is deferential: a court will affirm unless the order is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.
- **14 C.F.R. § 43.12(a)(3)** prohibits any alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of required maintenance records; falsifying inspection dates in aircraft logbooks can satisfy the regulation when done with an intent to deceive and involving material information.
- The NTSB analyzed § 43.12(a)(3) using an attempted-fraud style test (false representation of a material fact, knowledge of falsity, and intent to deceive); the Ninth Circuit accepted that approach for this case and found the evidence met it.
- A mechanic’s certificate action may be based on untrustworthiness in safety-related recordkeeping; revocation may be sustained for intentional logbook falsification even if the mechanic argues the conduct does not reflect a lack of mechanical skill.
- The choice of sanction is entitled to strong deference where it is consistent with agency practice and supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the NTSB’s finding that Borregard repeatedly altered and falsified aircraft inspection logbook dates with a fraudulent purpose in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 43.12(a)(3), and it affirmed emergency revocation of his mechanic certificate and inspection authorization as a lawful sanction for conduct showing he could not be trusted to keep required maintenance records accurately.


Borregard v. National Transportation Safety Board, 46 F.3d 944 (1995)