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 de nied 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 Avia tion 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43.13(a) and appendix D to part 43 to include requirements for a pilot to perform preventive maintenance and revise the outdated checklist in appendix D to part 43.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 combinat ion 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

W e use the following criteria to determin e 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 cri tical 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 de termine what is considered airworthy are

determined in the certification requirements for the aircraft, produc t, 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 mainte nance. 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 replace ment 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 mainta in aircraft requires different processes, procedures, and skill sets for large transpor t category aircraft operating at high altitudes than those for small aircraft operating at lower altitudes.

Finally, for item 5 above, we disagree w ith the proposed revision to § 65.95 because mechanics are not required to have an appr oved 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