September 23, 2011 

Mr. Michael J. Harkins 

451 Spring Hollow Drive, Parkside 

Middletown, DE 19709 

Dear Mr. Harkins: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for rulemaking. It explains 

the basis for our decision and describes the effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letters dated February 18 and May 20, 2008 (public docket Nos. FAA-2008-0305 and 

FAA-2008-0599), you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as follows: 

1. Amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 1 to add a definition for the 

term “airworthy.” 

2. Amend § 43.13(a) and appendix D to part 43 to include requirements for a pilot to 

perform preventive maintenance and revise the outdated checklist in appendix D 

to part 43. 

3. Amend § 65.81 to allow a mechanic to overhaul wet horizontal compasses. 

4. Amend § 65.93 to allow use of a combination of activities for renewal of an 

inspection authorization (IA) by allowing the holder of an IA to take credit for 

work performed under § 91.409(e) and (f). This amendment would include an 

increase in the requirements for renewal of the IA. 

5. Amend § 65.95 to allow a mechanic to sign FAA Form 8130-3 tag for return to 

service. 

 

Our Decision 

We use the following criteria to determine which petitions for rulemaking are of 

sufficient importance to initiate a rulemaking action: 

a) the immediacy of the safety concerns the petition raises; 

b) the priority of other FAA rulemaking issues; and 

c) the resources we have available to address these issues. 
2

The FAA has determined that some of your proposals have merit; however, our limited 

rulemaking resources are being applied to critical safety issues, some of which were 

recently mandated by Congress through legislation. Therefore, we will place your 

proposals for revisions to § 65.93 and appendix D to part 43 in a database of issues that 

have merit and value for long-term planning. We disagree with some of your proposals 

and provide our responses below. 

For item 1 above, we disagree with the proposal to add a definition of “airworthy” for 

two reasons. First, the conditions that determine what is considered airworthy are 

determined in the certification requirements for the aircraft, product, or part at the time of 

certification. Second, we already define airworthy for general purposes in § 3.5(a). 

For item 2 above, the FAA does not see a need to revise the requirements of part 43 to 

enable pilots to perform preventive maintenance. The requirements of § 43.13(a) and (b) 

apply equally to pilots and mechanics who perform preventive maintenance. 

For item 3 above, the FAA does not agree that mechanics should be allowed to overhaul 

wet horizontal compasses. These compasses are instruments that require inspection of 

the gamble and setting the compensator--actions considered to be major repairs that are 

more involved than a simple replacement of the diaphragm and fluid. 

For item 4 above, the FAA does not agree that IA holders should be granted credit for 

performing functions outside the scope of the authorization. The requirement for 

authorizing an IA holder to inspect and maintain aircraft requires different processes, 

procedures, and skill sets for large transport category aircraft operating at high altitudes 

than those for small aircraft operating at lower altitudes. 

Finally, for item 5 above, we disagree with the proposed revision to § 65.95 because 

mechanics are not required to have an approved quality control system or a check and 

balance system, requirements that are a part of the procedures to approve a product for 

return to service using FAA Form 8130-3 tag. 

Pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701 delegated to me by 

the Administrator, your petition for rulemaking is hereby denied. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service