The Contract Maintenance Rule: riding the winds of policymaking

With all the huffing and puffing that takes place on Capitol Hill, it is often difficult to decipher which way the wind is blowing. Constant vigilance and engagement in the nation’s capital is critical to maintaining an accurate weathervane.

Legislators, regulators and special interests huff and puff about contract maintenance. Through unnecessary regulatory burden and congressional micromanagement, policymakers insert themselves into the businesses of aviation maintenance. For directors of maintenance, keeping tabs on these issues and winning policy fights is as vital to business success as meeting deadlines and beating budgets. ARSA also read the weathervane and dug in for the long fight on behalf of maintenance providers.

For example, the relationship between air carriers and maintenance providers first came under scrutiny after the 1996 loss of ValuJet 592. After an aggressive lobbying campaign from organized labor, Congress convinced itself that legislation was needed to force the FAA’s hand. The purpose: cripple contract maintenance.

The lengthy debate came to a head with a final rule on air carrier contract maintenance, which will take effect March 4, 2016. The rule’s promulgation was an outcome of Section 319 of the FAA Modernization & Reform Act of 2012 (“the Act”), which required the FAA to regulate the relationship between air carriers and maintenance providers. For an effort that began with such ill intentions, the contract maintenance industry can once again breathe easily.

Key political players in the nation’s capital spent decades arguing over the practice of contracting air carrier maintenance. ARSA worked closely with both Congress and the FAA to minimize negative effects. The work started on Capitol Hill. It was the association’s maneuvering that ensured the language in the Act aligned with industry practices and the FAA’s guidance materials. Then, the association submitted detailed comments on behalf of the aviation maintenance industry to the agency’s notice of proposed rulemaking.

The final rule is far from perfect. There is confusion in the definition for “covered work,” particularly regarding “regularly-scheduled maintenance.” Even with deficiencies, the rule’s effects are far less harmful than they would have been without proactive engagement.

For instance, the FAA initially intended to construe “supervision and control” by the air carrier as in-person observance. ARSA and other groups convinced the agency not to do so, and the final rule requires only that the certificate holder be “available for consultation” rather than physically present.

Avoid getting caught in political crosswinds. Anticipating legislative and regulatory developments is imperative for good business. Ensuring those developments are consistent with existing statutes and regulations — although not glamorous work — eliminates confusion, reduces compliance costs and alleviates administrative headaches. Such was the case with the great contract maintenance debate of the past two decades: without ARSA’s involvement, maintenance providers would have had a much more cumbersome rule on their hands.

To learn more about the new rule and requirements for compliance, visit arsa.org/contract-maintenance. 

Laura E. Vlieg is an associate of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein, PLC advising clients in international aviation safety regulation and government affairs. She serves as a regulatory affairs manager for both the Aeronautical Repair Station Association and the Aviation Technician Education Council.