I am puzzled by what all this means. On the face of it it seems to be a much better result than could have been hoped for and I hope it means what it says.
The IMCR does not fit anywhere into the current proposed Part FCL. It is not a rating issued under JAR nor is it a rating associated with the NPPL and even if it were there is no comparable EASA rating and the regulations assume that national ratings are mirrored by similar EASA ratings.
So, we now seem to have a concesssion which is wholy contradictory of the whole EASA/Part FCL regulations ethos. I do not see how the IMCR can be grandfathered under the current Part FCL proposal and they would have to be amended to allow this to happen, as rules would in effect be needed to enable NAAs to grant their own national ratings. This would have to be sufficiently generic to be applied EU wide, as I doubt that singling out the UK for special treatment would be considered acceptable.
I do wonder whether this concession is the start of a face saving exercise which will see the Part FCL draft withrawn for a rewrite. May they even be anticipating being sent away by the Commission to try again? What ever we think of the parentage of some members of EASA they and the Commission cannot be deaf to the rising clamour of protest, especially now from the US at the impact of the proposals on the US economy. When phrases such as “a smokescreen for political chauvinism.” and "potential regulatory and trade consequences" start to be used by the US the euorocrats and politicians are going to start to take notice. The last thing anyone will want in the midst of a global recession will be the erection of trade barriers between Europe and the US.