FAA to Clarify "Actively Engaged"

Last week Friday the FAA released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to as they put it, “…clarify the term actively engaged for the purposes of application and renewal of an inspection authorization.†Docket ID No: FAA-2010-1060. There’s a very short comment period for this Proposal. Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010 and the FAA intends for this clarification to be in effect for the next IA renewal cycle in March 2011. The FAA implies in the NPRM that they wouldn’t have had to follow the NPRM process; essentially advising industry. However, as they put it, because of widespread confusion and inconsistent interpretation of actively engaged, they are publishing the proposed amendment and are inviting public comment. It appears this interpretation confusion is coming from within the FAA ranks. The primary example used to describe the need for this clarification is the holder of an IA who is maintaining aircraft part-time or occasionally. Those technicians will be subject to individual evaluation by an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) to determine if they are in fact actively engaged, and based on this evaluation you may or may not be eligible for IA renewal. The potential ramifications of this proposal seem too great and many scenarios come to mind where current holders of an IA may/will not be eligible for renewal. How does this clarified interpretation affect maintenance supervisors, managers, and directors, technical representatives for an OEM, technical instructors, engineers, quality auditors, or maintenance controllers? These roles typically are not turning wrenches (actively engaged) but administratively are managing aircraft maintenance, safety, compliance, and people that are turning wrenches. Many aircraft maintenance technicians rose to these levels and beyond because they hold an IA; which is the only advanced maintenance authorization the FAA provides for an A&P certificated technician. Are these folks now ineligible for IA renewal? Does your current job description as maintenance director for a corporate flight department require you to hold an IA, even though you may not regularly exercise the authority? Also during these times of high unemployment this proposal almost seems counterintuitive. Will there be a scenario where an unemployed technician who would otherwise apply for a job that requires an IA, now be in a position of not being qualified because he or she was recently denied IA renewal? There are probably other scenarios where current IA holders could be in jeopardy. I’m OK with clarification of regulations and practices. But as written this Proposal appears to have more negative impact to our industry than good. I encourage everyone to visit www.regulations.gov. Select Document Type: Rules. Check the box titled, Open for Comment/Suggestion. In the box titled, Enter Key Word or ID: place the Docket number FAA-2010-1060. Press the Search button and you will be presented with the NPRM and the ability to Submit A Comment. Read the proposal and comment before December 6, 2010. Instructions are provided in the NPRM. Keep ‘em flying, Ron