document the procedures and tools it would use to download and analyze
the data from LARS, and the procedures and criteria it would use to
identify and evaluate the data from LARS to enhance safety in its
operations.
    The FAA would require a certificate holder to establish a method to
retrieve, analyze, and evaluate data that is collected by LARS. Under
this proposal, the FAA intends to provide flexibility to certificate
holders with respect to how each certificate holder uses its LARS data
by allowing them to establish an individualized program that is unique
to its operation.
    The FAA notes that this proposal would address NTSB Safety
Recommendation A-09-90 that recommends requiring certificate holders to
install flight data recording devices on helicopter air ambulances and
to ``establish a structured flight data monitoring program that reviews
all available data sources to identify deviations from established
norms and procedures and other potential safety issues.'' Because the
FAA would require LARS under this scenario, the data developed by
operators would not be eligible for protection under 14 CFR part 193,
Protection of Voluntarily Submitted Information.
    Under this proposal, the FAA anticipates that certificate holders
could use FDRs installed in helicopter air ambulances to comply with
the LARS requirement. If the certificate holder is required under Sec.
135.152 to have an FDR, it would be able to choose to use either the
FDR or a certified quick-access recorder (QAR) connected to the flight
data acquisition unit to comply with this requirement. A QAR provides a
means to access the data collected by a FDR without removing the FDR.
The time and effort required to access and download data from the FDR
could be prohibitive. The additional weight from a QAR installation is
about 0.5 pounds. A QAR unit, STC, and support software can cost
$10,000 to $15,000, compared to the cost and installation of a LARS of
less than $10,000. In either case, the proposed requirement to show how
this data is being used to improve the safety of flight operations
would remain applicable.
    The FAA considered permitting a CVR as an alternate means of
complying with the proposed requirement to use LARS in an accident
prevention program. However, similar to an FDR, the data recorded on a
CVR may be difficult to retrieve following a flight. CVRs may be
installed in hard-to-access locations inhibiting access to the unit.
Further, obtaining the data may require the certificate holder to
remove the CVR from the aircraft in order to transfer the data in an
audible format. This process is time-consuming and labor-intensive,
potentially causing the helicopter to remain out of service for a
period of time. A certificate holder may require an inventory of CVRs
to replace a removed CVR and immediately return the helicopter to
service. Although CVRs provide excellent post-accident information, the
CVR data alone does not provide adequate information for an accident
prevention program. The FAA believes that these inefficiencies,
combined with the limited usefulness of a CVR, could present a
significant barrier to using CVR information to improve the safety of a
certificate holder's operations.
    Although CVRs, FDRs, and QARs have been successfully implemented in
several industry accident prevention programs, as discussed, the FAA
does not believe that traditional recorders provide the most efficient
means to collecting flight performance and operational data for
helicopter air ambulances. In light of the fact that some helicopters
currently used in air ambulance operations may be equipped with CVRs or
FDRs, and given the comprehensive amount of data collected by and
superior crashworthiness of those devices, the FAA calls for comments
regarding how certificate holders could incorporate these devices into
a program to enhance the safety of helicopter air ambulance operations.
3. Pilot Requirements
a. Instrument Rating (Sec.  135.603)
    The FAA is proposing to add Sec.  135.603 to require a helicopter
air ambulance pilot to hold a helicopter instrument rating.
    Currently, Sec.  135.243(a) and (b) require the pilot in command of
a helicopter air ambulance to hold, at a minimum, a commercial pilot
certificate. To obtain a commercial pilot certificate with a helicopter
rating, Sec.  61.129(c) requires that a pilot complete 10 hours of
instrument training. However, helicopter air ambulance pilots are not
required to hold instrument ratings unless they will be performing IFR
or VFR over-the-top operations. In addition to other requirements,
Sec.  61.65 requires a pilot to complete 50 hours of cross-country
flight time as pilot in command and 40 hours of actual or simulated
instrument time to obtain an instrument rating.
    As discussed previously, the FAA found that inadvertent flight into
IMC is a common factor in helicopter air ambulance accidents. In
general, many accidents result when pilots who lack the necessary
skills or equipment to fly in marginal VMC or IMC attempt flight
without outside references. This proposal is intended to ensure that
helicopter air ambulance pilots are equipped to handle these situations
and extract themselves from these dangerous situations. A pilot who
receives the more extensive training on navigating a helicopter solely
by reference to instruments provided by obtaining an instrument rating
is better able to maintain situational awareness and maneuver the
helicopter into a safe environment than a pilot without an instrument
rating.
    The FAA is not proposing that a helicopter air ambulance pilot
maintain instrument currency. This proposal is targeted to VFR
operators because operators conducting IFR operations already must
maintain instrument currency. The FAA has chosen this approach because,
for VFR operators, this capability may require fewer resources than
required to meet full currency requirements while maintaining adequate
safety standards. Under this proposal, pilots would be required to
demonstrate the ability to recover from inadvertent IMC during their
annual competency checks.\39\ The FAA believes that pilots who learn
basic instrument skills while obtaining an instrument rating,
supplemented by preparation for an annual competency

check, will be adequately prepared to recover from an inadvertent IMC
encounter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See section III.B.3. of the preamble to this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would take effect 3 years after the effective date of
the rule to allow helicopter air ambulance pilots who are not
instrument-rated adequate time to pursue an instrument rating and to
distribute the costs over a period of time.
b. Flight and Duty Time Limitations (Sec. Sec.  135.267 and 135.271)
    The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. Sec.  135.267 and 135.271 to
require helicopter air ambulance operations conducted with medical
personnel on board to count towards a pilot's daily flight time
limitations.
    Currently, in certain situations, flight segments conducted without
passengers but with medical personnel on board the helicopter are
conducted under part 91. Specifically, part 91 segments preceding part
135 segments are considered ``other commercial flying'' and count
towards a pilot's daily flight time limitations. Part 91 segments that
follow part 135 segments do not count towards the daily flight time
limitations under Sec.  135.267 or Sec.  135.271, although these
flights count towards a flightcrew member's quarterly and yearly flight
time limitations because they are commercial flights.
    Helicopter air ambulance accidents have not been limited to flights
conducted while patients were on board the aircraft. In fact, 35 of the
55 accidents included in the NTSB's January 2006 Special Investigation
Report on Emergency Medical Services Operations, occurred with medical
personnel but no patients were on board.\40\ The FAA, therefore, is
proposing to provide additional protections to medical crewmembers on
flights, which under the current rules, would be conducted under part
91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NTSB, Special Investigation Report on Emergency Medical
Services Operations (NTSB/SIR-06/01) 3 (Jan. 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, the FAA is proposing to apply part 135
rules to all helicopter air ambulance flights with medical personnel on
board. This would have the effect of bringing such flight segments of a
helicopter air ambulance operation under the part 135 flight and duty
rules. The changes proposed to Sec. Sec.  135.267 and 135.271 emphasize
that all flight time in helicopter air ambulance operations would be
considered flight time that counts towards a pilot's daily fight time
limitations.
    The FAA notes that these proposed changes respond to NTSB Safety
Recommendation A-06-12. In that recommendation, the NTSB recognized
that part 135 and part 91 differ regarding crew rest requirements--part
135 contains flight time limitations and rest requirements while part
91 does not. The NTSB emphasized in that recommendation that the phases
of flight that involve transporting medical personnel, patient drop-
off, and aircraft positioning comprise the EMS mission and should not
be differentiated. The NTSB concluded that the safety of EMS operations
would be improved if the entire EMS flight operated under part 135
operations specifications.
    Certificate holders would be required to comply with this provision
by the effective date of the final rule.

B. Commercial Helicopters Operations (Including Air Ambulance
Operations)

    The following provisions would apply to all commercial helicopter
operations, including helicopter air ambulance operations, conducted
under part 135. These proposals include new operational and equipment
requirements for affected certificate holders.
1. Operational Procedures
a. IFR Alternate Airport Weather Minima (Sec.  135.221)
    The FAA is proposing to amend Sec.  135.221 to revise the alternate
airport weather minima for helicopter IFR operations. Currently, pilots
conducting IFR operations must designate an alternate airport at which
the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized landing
minima at the estimated time of arrival.
    Under the proposal, for part 97 instrument approach procedures or
special instrument approach procedures, to designate an airport as an
alternate, the ceiling at the alternate airport would need to be 200
feet above the minimum for the approach to be flown, and the visibility
would need to be at least 1 statute mile, but never less than the
minimum visibility for the approach to be flown. For airports without a
part 97 instrument approach or no special instrument approach
procedure, the ceiling and visibility minima would be those allowing
descent from the minimum en route altitude, approach, and landing under
VFR.
    The FAA notes that the proposal recognizes the differences in
operating characteristics between helicopters and airplanes.
Helicopters fly shorter distances at slower airspeeds than most other
aircraft, carry less fuel than an airplane, and generally remain in the
air for shorter periods of time between landings. As a result, it is
often more difficult for a helicopter to fly out of a weather system to
an alternate destination. In addition, the destination airport and
alternate airport are likely to be in the same air mass and thus
experiencing similar weather. Therefore, requiring pilots to use
increased weather minima when selecting an alternate airport would
improve the likelihood of landing at the alternate airport if weather
conditions in the area deteriorate while the helicopter is en route.
    The FAA notes that it adapted this proposal from the current
alternate airport weather requirement in Sec.  91.169 and from the
weather minima in Operations Specification H105 issued to part 135
helicopter operators conducting IFR operations. The FAA also notes that
the Part 125/135 ARC recommended a similar change.
    Certificate holders would be required to comply with this provision
by the effective date of the final rule.
2. Equipment Requirements
a. Radio Altimeter (Sec.  135.160)
    The FAA is proposing to add Sec.  135.160 to require radio
altimeters for all helicopters operated under part 135. Certificate
holders would have 3 years from the effective date of the final rule to
comply. Currently, part 135 does not require radio altimeters for any
aircraft. However, under FAA Operations Specification A050, helicopter
operators authorized to use night vision goggles in night operations
are required to use radio altimeters.
    Radio altimeters are designed to inform the pilot of the aircraft's
actual height above the ground.\41\ A radio altimeter can greatly
improve a pilot's awareness of height above the ground (AGL) during
hover, landing in unimproved landing zones (rough field landings), and
landings in confined areas where a more vertical approach may be
required. Additionally, radio altimeters help increase situational
awareness during inadvertent flight into IMC, night operations, and
flat-light, whiteout, and brownout conditions. In all of these
conditions, pilots lose their reference to the horizon and to the
ground.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ A radio altimeter sends a radio wave to the ground and
determines the height of aircraft above the surface by measuring the
time it takes for the radio wave to be reflected back to the
receiving unit. Altitude is then displayed on the aircraft's control
panel. Additionally, the pilot can select a low altitude indicator
to alert him or her of a low-altitude situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Radio altimeters are proven technology that is relatively low-cost,

reliable, and user-friendly. According to a January 2009 FAA survey of
certificate holders authorized to conduct helicopter air ambulance
operations, 89 percent of helicopter air ambulance operators have
installed radio altimeters on their aircraft. The FAA estimates, based
on a sampling of certificate holders, that 75 percent of helicopters
used in other part 135 operations are currently equipped with radio
altimeters.
    The FAA believes that the following accident illustrates the type
of accident that may have been prevented with the use of radio
altimeters. On May 31, 2006, a Bell 206L-1 helicopter, operating under
14 CFR part 135 and originating in Juneau, AK, collided with terrain
while maneuvering in reduced visibility over an ice field. The pilot
encountered whiteout and flat light conditions, and fog. The pilot and
two out of the six passengers received minor injuries. During the
investigation, the pilot stated that he could not ``discern the ground
below him due to the flat light conditions.'' The NTSB cited ``the
pilot's failure to maintain adequate altitude/clearance from terrain
while maneuvering in adverse weather conditions'' as the probable cause
of the accident. The NTSB further noted that the helicopter was not
equipped with a radio altimeter. See NTSB Accident Report ANC06LA066
(Feb. 26, 2007).
    The proposal would respond to NTSB Safety Recommendation A-02-35,
which was issued after the investigations of several accidents in which
flat-light or whiteout conditions were mentioned as the probable cause.
In its recommendation, the NTSB noted that radio altimeters, currently
not required for helicopters, might aid pilots in recognizing proximity
to the ground in flat-light and whiteout conditions.
    In addition, the FAA notes that the proposal would respond to the
Part 125/135 ARC's recommendation to require installation of radio
altimeters in helicopter air ambulances. For the reasons discussed
above, however, the FAA is proposing broader use of radio altimeters to
increase safety in all part 135 rotorcraft operations.
    The FAA notes that this proposed rule would require helicopter air
ambulances to be equipped with both HTAWS and a radio altimeter.
Additionally, other commercial helicopter operators may opt to
voluntarily equip their helicopters with HTAWS. The FAA considered
whether to permit devices that perform functions similar to radio
altimeters, such as HTAWS, to satisfy the radio altimeter requirement.
However, the FAA has determined that either an FAA-approved radio
altimeter, or other device that measures an aircraft's altitude by
sending a signal to the ground, should be required because of the
accuracy of information obtained from those units and the method by
which that information is collected. Some HTAWS are passive and derive
the aircraft's ground speed, position, and altitude from a GPS and a
preprogrammed algorithm database installed and maintained by the HTAWS
manufacturer. Additionally, altitude indications on such systems often
rely on the pilot setting the correct barometric pressure, which may
change rapidly, to obtain an accurate reading. The FAA is concerned
that passive systems may not provide as accurate an altitude reading
for pilots experiencing brownout or white-out conditions while close to
the ground. A radio altimeter is an active system that provides real-
time information to the pilot regarding the aircraft's height above the
terrain, including elevated heliports and buildings, by sending and
receiving a signal from the aircraft. Radio altimeters are also not
subject to variations in barometric pressure. The FAA notes that an
HTAWS that incorporates or works in conjunction with a radio altimeter
function would meet the requirements of this proposal. The FAA seeks
comment on the requirement to install a radio altimeter, and the safety
benefits of installing both HTAWS and a radio altimeter. The FAA also
seeks comments on the proposed effective date of this provision.
b. Safety Equipment for Over-Water Flights (Sec. Sec.  1.1, 135.167,
and 135.168)
    The FAA is proposing to revise the definition of extended over-
water operation in Sec.  1.1 as it applies to helicopters. The FAA also
is proposing to amend Sec.  135.167 to exclude rotorcraft and add Sec.
135.168 prescribing graduated emergency equipment requirements for
rotorcraft based on the distance the rotorcraft is operating from the
shoreline. Certificate holders would have 3 years from the effective
date of the final rule to comply with proposed Sec.  135.168.
    Currently, under Sec.  91.205(b)(12) and Sec.  135.183, a
passenger-carrying helicopter operating over water at an altitude that
would not permit it to reach land in the event of engine failure must
be equipped with approved flotation gear for each passenger and, unless
it is a multiengine helicopter that meets certain performance
requirements, helicopter floatation devices. Additionally, a helicopter
engaged in extended over-water operations (currently defined as more
than 50 NM from the nearest shoreline or offshore heliport structure)
is required to carry the equipment listed in Sec.  135.167.
    Under proposed Sec.  1.1, the reference to offshore heliport
structures would be removed from the definition of ``extended over-
water operation'' for helicopters. As a result, any operation conducted
more than 50 NM from the nearest shoreline would be an extended over-
water operation, regardless of proximity to offshore heliport
structures. The FAA recognizes that the current rule permits
helicopters to travel long distances from shore without carrying safety
equipment other than floatation devices and life preservers, as long as
they remain within 50 miles of an offshore heliport. In the Gulf of
Mexico, for example, some offshore oil platforms are located 150 NM
from the shoreline. The FAA is concerned that offshore heliports may
not provide the same search and rescue capabilities as are available on
shore, such as Coast Guard patrols and a greater number of vessels in
the vicinity. Accordingly, the FAA believes that this change would
increase safety by eliminating the ability to hopscotch from heliport
to heliport at great distances from shore without carrying water
survival safety equipment.
    Under proposed rule Sec.  135.168, a helicopter operating over
water beyond autorotational distance from the shoreline but within 50
NM of the shoreline would be required to carry, among other equipment--
life preservers; a 406 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter
that meets the requirements of TSO-C126a, 406 MHz Emergency Locator
Transmitter (ELT), a pyrotechnic signaling device; and electronically
deployable or externally mounted life rafts. For extended over-water
operations, a helicopter would need to be equipped with the equipment
required for over water operations, as well as additional survival
equipment prescribed in proposed Sec.  135.168.
    The FAA is proposing to require a 406 MHz ELT for several reasons.
As indicated in previous rulemakings, the 406 MHz ELT provides an
enhancement and more life-saving benefits, especially for over-water
operations, than the 121.5/243 MHz ELT. See 65 FR 81316 (Dec. 22,
2000); 59 FR 32050 (Jun. 21, 1994). These benefits include a narrower
search area, a stronger signal resulting in less interference, and the
ability to code the transmitter with the owner's or aircraft's
identification. Further, as of February 1, 2009, the international
search-and-rescue satellite system, known as COSPAS-SARSAT, ceased
monitoring 121.5 MHz ELTs in

response to guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). These
organizations mandate safety requirements for aircraft and maritime
vessels and have recognized the limitations of the 121.5 MHz beacons
and the superior capabilities of the 406 MHz alerting system.
    Among the equipment that would be required under proposed Sec.
135.168 for operations conducted beyond autorotational distance from
shore are electronically deployable or externally mounted life rafts.
The FAA believes that life rafts, in addition to life preservers, are
necessary safety equipment in the event of ditching. Passengers and
crewmembers who are forced to exit a helicopter in water may be subject
to strong currents and waves, making it difficult to swim or float with
a life preserver for long periods of time. In addition, a person in a
life raft is not as affected by cold water temperatures and is more
visible to rescuers than if he or she is in the water. In accidents
involving over-water operations, rescue aircraft can experience
difficulty locating and reaching a downed helicopter because of the
strength of the currents in which a ditching occurred and inaccurate
coordinates provided by the pilot experiencing the emergency. Passenger
access to emergency equipment sufficient to remain afloat for the
period of time it is likely to take a rescue mission to reach the site
enhances survivability.
    The proposed requirement for electronically deployable or
externally mounted life rafts would increase the likelihood that these
items would be available during an emergency. In two accidents
investigated by the NTSB, helicopters sank before passengers could
deploy the life rafts that were on board.
    One accident cited by NTSB occurred off the coast of Texas in 2005
following an in-flight fire and eventual dual-engine power loss. When
the helicopter, which was operating under part 135, hit the water, it
sank so rapidly that neither of the two life rafts stored under the
cabin seats were retrieved before the helicopter sank. The occupants,
all of whom were wearing personal flotation devices, survived; however,
some occupants suffered hypothermia during the 7\1/2\ hours that
elapsed before they were rescued. The NTSB noted that, although the
survivors' personal flotation devices were equipped with locator
lights, the U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue crews, using night-
vision goggles, reported that the lights were barely visible at night
in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. NTSB Accident Report DFW05MA230
(Apr. 28, 2009).
    In another accident, which occurred in 2003, a helicopter operating
under part 135 experienced engine failure over the Gulf of Mexico and
ditched. The pilot and four passengers evacuated and inflated their
personal flotation devices; however, the pilot and one passenger died
and the other passengers were seriously injured before the rescue team
arrived. The helicopter was equipped with a life raft located under the
cabin seats, but it was not deployed. Surviving passengers indicated
that they were not briefed about the location of the life raft. The
NTSB noted ``[w]ith better access to life rafts stored on board the
aircraft and better signaling devices, occupants would have had a
greater chance of surviving.'' NTSB Accident Report FTW03FA097 (Apr.
28, 2005).
    The FAA notes that these proposals address NTSB Safety
Recommendation A-07-87 that recommends all existing and new turbine-
powered helicopters operating in the Gulf of Mexico and certificated
with five or more seats be equipped with externally mounted life rafts
large enough to accommodate all occupants. Additionally, they address
NTSB Safety Recommendation A-07-88 that recommends all offshore
helicopter operators in the Gulf of Mexico provide their flight crews
with personal flotation devices equipped with a waterproof, global-
positioning-system-enabled 406 megahertz personal locater beacon, as
well as one other signaling device, such as a signaling mirror or
strobe light.
    Additionally, the Part 125/135 ARC recommended that the FAA amend
its regulations to base emergency equipment requirements on the
distance a helicopter operates from the shoreline. The FAA agrees with
the Part 125/135 ARC's recommendation, and believes its proposed
changes would result in a higher level of safety because of the
enhanced safety equipment carried by helicopters operating over water.
    The FAA points out that the proposed safety equipment requirements
for helicopters differ from those for airplanes. This distinction is
made for two reasons. First, helicopters generally operate at lower
altitudes than passenger-carrying aircraft. In the Gulf of Mexico,
helicopters serving oil rigs typically operate at altitudes below
10,000 feet. These lower altitudes leave little power-off glide
capability. Second, airplanes are designed with certain features that
enable them to float for a period of time after ditching, such as doors
above the waterline, closeable outflow valves in the wings, and, in
some airplanes, pressurized cabins. Helicopters do not incorporate
these design features and behave less predictably when ditched.
Therefore, the FAA believes that helicopter passengers should have
additional protections for survival in water if they need to exit the
helicopter after ditching.
3. Training--Recovery From Inadvertent Flight Into IMC (Sec.  135.293)
    The FAA is proposing to amend Sec.  135.293 to require helicopter
pilots to demonstrate recovery from an inadvertent IMC encounter and
understand procedures for aircraft handling in flat-light, whiteout,
and brownout conditions.
    The current regulations do not require a pilot to demonstrate
safely maneuvering an aircraft back into VMC following an inadvertent
flight into IMC during a Sec.  135.293 competency check. Pilots seeking
a commercial or airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate are not
required to demonstrate an IMC recovery during the initial examination.
A demonstration of IMC recovery is not included in the currency
requirements for any pilot certificate. However, the FAA requires
demonstration of Lost Procedures and Radio Navigation and Radar
Services, which contain components similar to IMC recovery procedures
under, the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards for
Rotorcraft.\42\ In AC 135-14A, the FAA also recommends that helicopter
air ambulance pilots obtain training in basic instrument flying skills
to assist in recovery from inadvertent flight into IMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ FAA-S-8081-16A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this proposal, Sec.  135.293 would require a pilot to
demonstrate a realistic course of action that he or she might take to
escape from inadvertent IMC during a competency check. The FAA
understands that aircraft are configured differently and instrument
approaches may not be readily available in all places where helicopters
operate. Therefore, the FAA would permit flexibility in the method by
which a pilot meets the demonstration requirement and expects that
inspectors would approve methods appropriate to the aircraft,
equipment, and facilities available.
    The proposal would require that the demonstration be scenario-based
and include attitude instrument flying, recovery from unusual
attitudes, navigation, ATC communications, and at least one instrument
approach. The check-pilot should coordinate with ATC, if available,
before the execution of the scenario to inform ATC that exercises will
be performed with VFR-

equipped helicopter and that radar vectors and directional turns will
be requested. If the aircraft is appropriately equipped and the check
is conducted at a location where an ILS is operational, the pilot
should demonstrate an ILS approach. If the pilot is unable to conduct
an ILS approach, he or she should demonstrate a GPS approach if the
aircraft is equipped to do so and the pilot is properly trained. If
neither an ILS nor GPS procedure can be performed, the pilot should
perform another instrument approach. Partial panel operations, during
which instrument failure or loss of instrumentation is simulated,
should be considered if sufficient instruments are available from
single sources.
    The proposal also would require a pilot to demonstrate knowledge of
the methods for avoiding the conditions described above and the proper
aircraft handling on a written or oral test. To satisfy these
requirements, the FAA anticipates that pilots would receive training on
items such as landing zone reconnaissance, risk mitigation, maintaining
situational awareness and decision-making on whether to land or choose
an alternate landing site.
    This provision would take effect on the effective date of the final
rule.
    In 2002, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendations A-02-33 and A-02-34
after investigating five commercial helicopter accidents in Alaska in
which flat-light or whiteout conditions were thought to be the probable
cause of the accidents. In its recommendations, the NTSB expressed
concern that commercial helicopter operators who operate in such
conditions are not required to be instrument-rated or to demonstrate
instrument competency, and that those pilots are not provided with the
training necessary to operate safely in such conditions. The NTSB
therefore recommended in Safety Recommendation A-02-33 that the FAA
require all helicopter pilots who conduct commercial, passenger-
carrying flights in areas where flat light or whiteout conditions
routinely occur to possess a helicopter-specific instrument rating and
to demonstrate their instrument competency during initial and recurrent
pilot testing required under 14 CFR 135.293. In addition, in Safety
Recommendation A-02-34, the NTSB recommended requiring all commercial
helicopter operators conducting passenger-carrying flights in areas
where flat light or whiteout conditions routinely occur to include safe
practices for operating in flat light or whiteout conditions in their
approved training programs.
    This proposed rule also would address NTSB Safety Recommendation A-
09-87 that calls for development of scenario-based pilot training for
helicopter air ambulance pilots that included inadvertent flight into
IMC and hazards unique to helicopter air ambulance operations, and
determine how frequently this training is required to ensure
proficiency.

C. Miscellaneous

1. Part 91 Weather Minima (Sec.  91.155)
    The FAA is proposing to revise Sec.  91.155 to prescribe visibility
minima for helicopters operating under part 91 in Class G airspace.
Section 91.155(b)(1) currently requires helicopters operating under
VFR, at 1,200 feet or less above the surface, to remain clear of clouds
and operate at a speed that permits the pilot adequate opportunity to
see any air traffic or obstruction in time to avoid a collision. The
FAA is concerned that the current standard does not provide an adequate
margin of safety for pilots who may suddenly encounter IMC because of
rapidly changing weather. The FAA is also concerned that the ``clear of
clouds'' standard, without an associated minimum visibility, may
encourage ``scud running'' in which pilots fly at a continually
decreasing altitude to remain clear of lowering clouds in an attempt to
stay in VFR conditions.
    Consequently, the FAA is proposing a minimum visibility standard of
\1/2\ statute mile during the day, and 1 statute mile at night, for
helicopters operating under VFR at 1,200 feet or less above the surface
in Class G airspace. This proposal would provide a greater margin of
safety for operators because pilots would be required to maintain a
fixed amount of visibility, and would be less likely to suddenly
encounter IMC. In addition to the proposed visibility minima, the
proposed rule would retain the current requirement to remain clear of
clouds.
    This provision would take effect on the effective date of the final
rule.
2. Load Manifest Requirements for All Part 135 Aircraft (Sec.  135.63)
    The FAA is proposing to revise the requirements of Sec.  135.63 to
apply to all aircraft operated under part 135 and to permit electronic
transmission of manifest copies. In considering this proposal for
commercial operations, the FAA determined this requirement would be
beneficial for all part 135 operations. Currently, Sec.  135.63
requires the preparation of a load manifest detailing information such
as aircraft weight, center of gravity, crewmember identification, and
other aircraft information before a flight involving a multiengine
aircraft. The load manifest must be prepared in duplicate, and one copy
must be carried on board the aircraft to its destination. Section
135.63 currently does not prescribe any specific action for the copy of
the load manifest not carried on board the aircraft. However, the FAA
has advised certificate holders to incorporate procedures in their
operations manuals for the disposition of the duplicate copy.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Legal Interpretation to Stanley L. Bernstein, from Rebecca
B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Nov. 11,
2009), available at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, multiengine airplanes were the predominant means of
transportation under part 135. Recently, single-engine passenger
carrying aircraft have increased in size and capacity and, therefore
their use in on-demand operations has increased. In 2005, the 125/135
ARC recommended that the FAA amend load manifest requirements to
include all part 135 aircraft. The FAA finds that all operators
carrying passengers for hire must generate a manifest, regardless of
the type of aircraft operated. In the event of an emergency, the
operator must be able to account for aircraft occupants and, in the
case of a fatal or serious accident, contact next of kin. Additionally,
the FAA believes that, in the event of an accident, load manifest
information pertaining to the aircraft's weight and balance would be
useful in determining whether the aircraft was loaded within the
aircraft's center-of-gravity limits and maximum allowable takeoff
weight. Therefore a copy of the load manifest should be available if
the copy on the aircraft is destroyed.
    This proposal would respond to NTSB Safety Recommendation A-99-61.
That recommendation followed a 1997 accident in which a single-engine
aircraft operating under part 135 and not equipped with an FDR collided
with terrain, killing the pilot and all eight passengers. The NTSB
determined that weight and balance may have played a role. The NTSB
expressed concern that ``single-engine operators may not consistently
give weight and balance calculations the attention necessary to ensure
safe flight,'' and noted that Sec.  135.63(c) currently requires only
operators of multiengine aircraft to prepare an accurate load manifest
in duplicate before each take off. The NTSB therefore recommended that
the FAA amend the regulation ``to apply to single-engine as well as
multiengine aircraft.''

    In addition, the FAA is proposing to eliminate the requirement that
the load manifest be prepared in duplicate for certificate holders who
elect to electronically transmit the information contained in the load
manifest to their operations base before take off. A certificate holder
electing this option would be permitted to transmit the information by
facsimile, e-mail, online form, or other electronic means and the
information must be received by the certificate holder's base of
operations or other approved location before take off. This would
ensure that the load manifest information is available in the event
that the copy carried on board the aircraft is destroyed. If a
certificate holder does not elect to transmit load manifest information
electronically, it would be required to prepare the load manifest in
duplicate. Additionally, the proposed rule would require the pilot in
command to arrange for a copy of the load manifest to be sent to the
certificate holder, retained in a suitable place at the takeoff
location, or retained in another location approved by the FAA.
    The FAA notes that the proposed regulation would not alter the
requirement that a copy of the load manifest must be carried on board
the aircraft to its final destination, although that copy may be in an
electronic format. In addition, the proposal would not change the
required content of the load manifest.
    Certificate holders would be required to comply with this provision
by the effective date of the final rule.
    While the FAA believes that proposed change could improve safety by
enhancing pre-flight planning by pilots conducting part 135 operations,
in its full Regulatory Evaluation (in the public docket for this
rulemaking) the agency estimates it could impose costs of $134 million
or $82 million present value. The FAA estimates that the present value
benefits at 7% over 10 years would be $20 million. The FAA seeks
comments, accompanied by data, on how these costs could be reduced and
how benefits could be increased while maintaining an equivalent level
of safety.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal contains the following new information collection
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted the information requirements
associated with this proposal to the Office of Management and Budget
for its review.
    Use: The information collection would enable helicopter air
ambulance operators to verify that risk analyses are being performed
and that safety procedures and training requirements are being
followed. In the event of an accident, the FAA and other entities could
examine these records.
    Number of Respondents: 17,237.
    Estimate of Annual Burdens: The following proposals would result in
recordkeeping burdens.
    (1) Require certificate holders performing helicopter air ambulance
operators to implement pre-flight risk-analysis programs (Sec.
135.615): This proposal would require that certificate holders outline
procedures for conducting pre-flight risk-analysis programs in their
operations manuals.
    The following estimate corresponds to section A.1.d. of the
economic evaluation.

Cost to Helicopter Air Ambulance Operators To Develop a Pre-Flight Risk
Analysis Program

Air ambulance operators = 73
Time needed to develop risk analysis program = 60 hours
Salary of helicopter pilot = $48 per hour
First-Year Cost
Cost: 73 x 60 x $48 = $210,240
Time: 73 x 60 = 4,380 hours
Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs
Cost: $0
Time: 0 hours
Total Over 10 Years
Cost: $210,240
Time: 4,380 hours
Average per Year
Cost: $210,240/10 = $21,024
Time: 4,380 hours/10 = 438 hours

Cost for Pilots To Perform a Pre-Flight Risk Analysis Before Each
Flight

Air ambulance Helicopters = 989
Operations per year per aircraft = 367
Time needed for risk analysis = 10/60 hour
Salary of helicopter pilot = $48 per hour
First-Year Cost
Cost: 989 x 367 x (10/60) x $48 = $2,903,704
Time: 989 x 367 x (10/60) = 60,494 hours
Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs
Cost: 989 x 367 x (10/60) x $48 = $2,903,704
Time: 989 x 367 x (10/60) = 60,494 hours
Total Over 10 Years
Cost: $2,903,704 x 10 = $29,037,040
Time: 60,494 hours x 10 = 604,940 hours
Average per Year
Cost: $29,037,040/10 = $2,903,704
Time: 604,940 hours/10 = 60,494 hours

    (2) Require air ambulance operators with 10 or more helicopters to
have an operations control center to communicate with pilots, advise
pilots of weather conditions, and provide flight-following services
(Sec.  135.617): This proposal would require certificate holders to
train and test operations control specialists and retain records on
those employees.
    The following estimate corresponds to section A.1.b. of the
economic evaluation.

Cost of Maintaining Records for the Operations Control Specialists'
Training and Examinations

Operations control specialists = 288
Time needed for a clerical person to maintain records of the training
and examinations = 5/60 hour
Salary of clerical person = $26 per hour
First-Year Cost
Cost: 288 x (5/60) x $26 = $624
Time: 288 x (5/60) = 24 hours
Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs
Cost: 288 x (5/60) x $26 = $624
Time: 288 x (5/60) = 24 hours
Total Over 10 Years
Cost: $624 x 10 = $6,240
Time: 24 hours x 10 = 240 hours

Average per Year
Cost: $6,240/10 = $624
Time: 240 hours/10 = 24 hours

    (3) Require additional VFR flight planning (Sec.  135.613): This
proposal would require helicopter air ambulance pilots to perform pre-
flight planning. Certificate holders would need to outline procedures
for pre-flight planning in their operations manuals.
    The following estimate corresponds to section A.1.c. of the
economic evaluation.

Cost To Helicopter Air Ambulance Operators To Establish Procedures To
Evaluate, Analyze, and Use Additional VFR Flight Planning in Their
Operations Manuals

Air ambulance helicopters = 989
Operations per year per aircraft = 367
Time needed for the flight planning = 5/60 hour
Salary of helicopter pilot = $48 per hour
First-Year Cost
Cost: 989 x 367 x (5/60) x $48 = $1,451,852
Time: 989 x 367 x (5/60) = 30,247 hours

Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs
Cost: 989 x 367 x (5/60) x $48 = $1,451,852
Time: 989 x 367 x (5/60) = 30,247 hours
Total Over 10 Years
Cost: $1,451,852 x 10 = $14,518,520
Time: 30,247 hours x 10 = 302,470 hours
Average per Year
Cost: $14,518,520/10 = $1,451,852
Time: 302,470 hours/10 = 30,247 hours

    (4) Light-weight aircraft recording system (LARS) on helicopter air
ambulances: The FAA is seeking comment on whether to require that
certificate holders install LARS on their helicopter air ambulances and
outline procedures for evaluating and using LARS data in their
operations manuals.
    The following estimate corresponds to section A.2.b. of the
economic evaluation.

One-Time Cost to Helicopter Air Ambulance Operators To Install LARS

Helicopter air ambulances = 989
Unit cost to equip with LARS = $6,450
First-Year Cost
Cost: 989/3 x $6,450 = $2,126,350
Subsequent 2 Years: Per-Year Costs
    Cost: 989/3 x $6,450 = $2,126,350
Total Over 10 years
Cost: $2,126,250 x 3 = $6,379,050
Average per Year
Cost: $6,349,050/10 = $637,905

Cost for LARS Software

Helicopter air ambulances = 989
Cost for LARS software = $750
First-Year Cost
Cost: 989/3 x $750 = $247,250
Second-Year Cost
    Cost: 989 x (\2/3\) x $750 = $494,500
Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs
Cost: 989 x $750 = $741,750
Total Over 10 Years
Cost: $247,250 + $494,500 + $741,750 x 8 = $6,675,750
Average per Year
Cost: $6,675,750/10 = $667,575

Cost to Helicopter Air Ambulance Operators To Establish Procedures To
Evaluate, Analyze, and Use LARS Data in Their Operations Manuals

Air ambulance operators = 73
Time needed for chief pilot = 2 hours
Time needed for a clerical person = 6 hours
Salary of chief pilot = $53 per hour
Salary of clerical person = $26 per hour
First-Year Cost
Cost: [73 x 2 x $53] + [73 x 6 x $26] = $19,126
Time: [73 x 2] + [73 x 6] = 584 hours
Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs
Cost: $0
Time: 0 hours
Total Over 10 Years
Cost: $19,126
Time: 584 hours
Average per Year
Cost: $19,126/10 = $1,913
Time: 584 hours/10 = 58.4 hours

    (5) Require that medical personnel on board helicopter air
ambulance flights either receive a supplemental safety briefing or
safety training in lieu of a pre-flight briefing (Sec.  135.619):
Certificate holders choosing the option to provide safety training
would be required to retain training records on those employees.
    The following estimate corresponds to section A.1.e. of the
economic evaluation.

Cost to Certificate Holder for Documenting the Training Provided to
Medical Personnel

Medical personnel = 10,965
Time needed for a clerical person to document the training = 5/60 hour
Salary of Clerical Person = $26 per hour
First-Year Cost
Cost: 10,965 x (5/60) x $26 = $23,758
Time: 10,965 x (5/60) = 914 hours
Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs
Cost: 10,965 x (5/60) x $26 = $23,758
Time: 10,965 x (5/60) = 914 hours
Total Over 10 Years
Cost: $23,758 x 10 = $237,580
Time: 914 hours x 10 = 9,140 hours

Average per year.

Cost: $237,580/10 = $23,758
Time: 9,140 hours/10 = 914 hours

    (6) Require preparation of a load manifest by operators of all
aircraft (not limited to multiengine aircraft) operated under part 135
(Sec.  135.63): This would amend existing OMB Control Number 2120-0039
by expanding the applicability from multiengine aircraft to all
aircraft. The following, therefore, addresses single-engine aircraft
only.
    The following estimate corresponds to section C.2. of the economic
evaluation.

Air ambulance aircraft (single-engine) = 108
Commercial aircraft (single-engine) = 3,752
Average number of takeoffs daily = 3
Technical time per takeoff = 5/60 hour
Salary of single-engine pilot = $38 per hour
First-Year Cost
Cost = [(108) x (3) x (365) x (5/60) x ($38)] + [(3,752) x (3) x (365)
x (5/60) x ($38)] = $13,384,550
Time = [(108) x (3) x (365) x (5/60)] + [(3,752) x (3) x (365) x (5/
60)] = 352,225 hours
Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs
Cost = [(108) x (3) x (365) x (5/60) x ($38)] + [(3,752) x (3) x (365)
x (5/60) x ($38)] = $13,384,550
Time = [(108) x (3) x (365) x (5/60)] + [(3,752) x (3) x (365) x (5/
60)] = 352,225 hours
Total Over 10 Years
Cost = $13,384,550 x 10 = $133,845,500
Time = 352,225 hours x 10 = 3,522,250 hours
Average Per Year
Cost = $133,845,500/10 = $13,384,550
Time = 3,522,250 hours/10 = 352,225 hours

    (7) Require that operations control specialists would be subject to
certificate holders' drug and alcohol testing programs (Sec. Sec.
120.105 and 120.215): The FAA believes that, because certificate
holders currently administer and maintain records for drug and alcohol
testing for other employees (approved under OMB Control Number 2120-
0535), the cost for a clerical person to maintain these records would
be negligible.
    Summary of all Burden Hours and Costs:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC10.000

    The agency is soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement by January 10, 2011, and should direct them to
the address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
preamble. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention:
Desk Officer for FAA, New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20053.
    According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5
CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control number for this information collection will be
published in the Federal Register, after the Office of Management and
Budget approves it.

V. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. Readers seeking greater
detail should read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which is
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) would be otherwise ``significant''
as defined in Executive Order 12866 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures; (4) would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities; (5) would not create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) would
not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, tribal governments, or
on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above.
These analyses are summarized below.
    The estimated mean benefit value for the air ambulance provisions
is $270 million or $160 million present value over the next 10 years.
The estimated mean benefit value for the commercial provisions is $193
million or $115 million present value over the next 10 years. The FAA
estimates the cost of this proposed rule for the air ambulance
provisions would be approximately $210 million ($136 million, present
value) over the next 10 years. The

estimated cost of the proposed rule for the commercial provisions would
be approximately $145 million ($89 million, present value) over the
next 10 years.
    As noted in the full regulatory evaluation, the FAA is unable to
estimate the costs of provisions A.1.a, A.3.b, and B.2.a. The FAA calls
for comments from affected entities requesting that all comments be
accompanied by clear and detailed supporting economic documentation.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions. The FAA invites public comment on its
RFA analysis, as detailed below, particularly with respect to the
number of small entities impacted, the costs for small entities, and
alternatives to the proposed rule that would meeting the agency's
statutory objectives in a less burdensome manner.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
    This proposed rule would impact air ambulance, air tour, and on
demand operators. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
classifies businesses as small based on size standards, typically
expressed in terms of annual revenue or number of employees. SBA
publishes a table of small business size standards matched to North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Table 1 shows
the size standards for the entities that would be affected by this
rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC10.001

    Because the FAA did not have actual annual revenues for air
ambulance operators, the agency estimated them using helicopter counts
as a revenue driver. The FAA assumed an average of 367 operations per
year for each helicopter and a revenue charge of $7,000 per operation.
As such, the FAA estimated that 28 small air ambulance operators (with
estimated revenues lower than $7 million) out of the 73 air ambulance
operators would be affected by this proposed regulation. Their
annualized cost per operation \44\ ranges between $123 and $131. Their
ratio of annualized cost to annual revenue ranges between 1.76% and
1.88%, which is significant.\45\ This proposal would impact
approximately 18 not-for-profit air ambulance operators. Accordingly,
the FAA prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for small air
ambulance operators, as described in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Annualized cost per operation equals total annualized costs
divided by number of helicopter air ambulance operations per year.
Total annualized cost equals present value cost over 10 years times
capital recovery factor.
    \45\ This is a lower bound estimate because the FAA was unable
to estimate the costs of several requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For air tour operators, the FAA assumed an average of 747
operations per year for each helicopter and a revenue charge of $1,700
per operation. As such, the FAA identified 31 small air tour operators
(with estimated revenues lower than $7 million) out of the 43 air tour
operators that would be affected by this regulation. Their annualized
cost per operation ranges between $10 and $24. Their ratio of
annualized cost to annual revenue ranges between 0.58% and 1.42%, which
may be significant. Accordingly, the FAA prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis for small air tour operators, as described in the
next section.
    The FAA identified 379 small on demand operators (with 1,500 or
fewer employees) out of the 380 on demand operators that would be
affected by this proposed regulation. Although their annualized
compliance costs ranges between $6,752 and $642,020, the agency is
unable to estimate their annual revenues because average revenue per
operation for these entities is not meaningful. There are a number of
factors (e.g., length of flight, type of helicopter) that determine the
revenue for an individual operation. These factors are not likely to
result in a distribution around a meaningful average revenue. The FAA
seeks comment on the impact to on demand operators as a result of this
proposal.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Under section 603(b) of the RFA (as amended), each regulatory
flexibility analysis is required to address the following points: (1)
Reasons the agency considered the proposed rule, (2) the objectives and
legal basis for the proposed rule, (3) the kind and number of small
entities to which the proposed rule would apply, (4) the reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule,
(5) all Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule, and (6) alternatives to the proposed rule.

Reasons the FAA Considered the Rule

    See section II. Background.

The Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(4), which requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations in the interest of safety
for the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other
employees of air carriers, and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security. As discussed throughout this document,
the proposal aims to improve safety for air ambulance operations and
other commercial helicopter operations.

The Kind and Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would
Apply

    Based on a review of part 135 certificates and operations
specifications, the FAA estimates 28 small air ambulance operators and
31 air tour operators that the proposed rule would impact. The agency
estimates that these operators have annual revenues between $1.3
million to $6.3 million.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Aviation Week, World Aerospace Database, Winter, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule

    Reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements are
outlined in section IV. Paperwork Reduction Act. The FAA seeks comment
on whether reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance costs vary from
small to large entities.

All Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule

    The FAA is unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.

Other Considerations

Affordability Analysis
    For the purpose of this analysis, the degree to which small
entities can afford the cost of the proposed rule is predicated on the
availability of financial resources. Costs can be paid from existing
assets such as cash, by borrowing, through the provision of additional
equity capital, by accepting reduced profits, by raising prices, or by
finding other ways of offsetting costs.
    One means of assessing the affordability is the ability of each of
the small entities to meet its short-term obligations, such as looking
at net income, working capital and financial strength ratios. According
to financial literature, a company's short-run financial strength is
substantially influenced by its working capital position and its
ability to pay short-term liabilities, among other things. However, the
FAA was unable to find this type of financial information for the
affected entities, and so used an alternative way of analyzing
affordability. The approach used by the FAA was to compare estimated
revenues with the annualized compliance costs.
    Small air ambulance operators and air tour operators may have
trouble absorbing the costs of complying with the proposed rule if
their annualized costs exceed 5 percent of their estimated revenues.
The idea is that if a business has such a high cost, percentage-wise,
it would likely have trouble absorbing the costs of complying with the
proposed rule. The average ratio of annualized cost to estimated annual
revenue for small air ambulance operators and air tour operators ranges
between 0.58% and 1.88%. Thus, the FAA expects that small air
ambulances and air tour operators would not have trouble absorbing the
costs of complying with this rule.
    Related to this analysis, the FAA seeks comment on whether the
economic impact on small entities is significant.
Competitiveness Analysis
    For small air ambulance and air tour operators, the ratio of
annualized cost to estimated annual revenue ranges between 0.58% and
1.88%. For large air ambulance and air tour operators, it ranges
between 0.62% and 2.4%. The FAA expects that based on these results,
there would be little change in the competitiveness of small air
ambulance and air tour operators relative to large operators.
Alternatives
    Alternative One--The current proposal would give certificate
holders three years from the effective date to install all required
pieces of equipment. This alternative would change the compliance date
to four years after the effective rule date. This would help small
business owners cope with the burden of the expenses because they would
be able to integrate these pieces of equipment over a longer period of
time.
    Conclusion--This alternative is not preferred because it would
delay safety enhancements. Thus, the FAA does not consider this to be
an acceptable alternative in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
    Alternative Two--This alternative would exclude the HTAWS unit from
the rulemaking proposal. Although this alternative would reduce
annualized costs to small air ambulance operators by approximately 12%
and the ratio of annualized cost to annual revenue would decrease from
a range of between 1.76% and 1.88% to a range of between 1.55% and
1.65%, the annualized cost of the proposed rule would still be
significant for all 35 small air ambulance operators. Since all 35
small air ambulance operators would still be significantly impacted by
this alternative, the alternative not only does not eliminate the
problem for a substantial number of small entities, but also it would
reduce safety.
    Conclusion--The HTAWS is an outstanding tool for situational
awareness and to help helicopter air ambulance pilots during nighttime
operations. This equipment is a great enhancement for situational
awareness in all aspects of flying including day, night, and instrument
meteorological conditions. Therefore the FAA believes that this
equipment is a significant enhancement for safety throughout all
aspects of helicopter operations. The accident data shows that the
HTAWS provision could have prevented many air ambulance accidents if
this equipage was available at the time of the accident. Thus the FAA
does not consider this to be an acceptable alternative in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
    Alternative Three--The alternative would increase the requirement
of certificate holders from 10 to 15 helicopters or more that are
engaged in helicopter air ambulance operations to have an Operations
Control Center.
    Conclusion--The FAA believes that operators with 10 or more
helicopters engaged in air ambulance operations would cover 66% of the
total population of the air ambulance fleet in the U.S. The FAA
believes that operators with 15 or more helicopters would decrease the
coverage of the population to 50%. Furthermore, complexity issues arise
and considerably increase with operators of more than 10 helicopters.
Thus the FAA does not consider this to be an acceptable alternative in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
    The FAA invites public comment on the conclusions reached with
regard to the alternatives outlined above.
Conclusion
    The FAA has determined that this proposed rule would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small helicopter air
ambulance and air tour operators. Because the agency is unable to
estimate annual revenues for on-demand operators, the FAA cannot
determine whether the proposed rule would have a significant impact on
a substantial number of on-demand operators. The FAA believes that
small helicopter air ambulance and air tour operators would be able to
afford the proposed rule and would remain competitive. While small
entities would likely be able to afford the proposal, the FAA seeks
comment on whether small entities will be able to remain competitive
under the proposal.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it would have only a domestic impact and therefore will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have federalism
implications.

VIII. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory
distinctions. Because this proposed rule would apply to helicopter air
ambulance, commercial helicopter, and general aviation operations, the
FAA specifically requests comments on whether there is justification
for applying the proposed rule differently in intrastate operations in
Alaska.

IX. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f. Additionally, the
FAA reviewed paragraph 304 of Order 1050.1E and determined that this
rulemaking involves no extraordinary circumstances.

X. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,
or Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 13211
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. The NPRM is, however,
``significant'' under DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

XI. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).

XI. Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Appendix to the Preamble--Additional Accidents Discussions

    The following is a list of accidents (listed with reference to the
associated preamble discussions) illustrative of the type that the FAA
believes this proposal may have prevented.

A. Helicopter Air Ambulance Operations

1. Operational Procedures

b. Operational Control Center
    On July 13, 2004, a Bell 407 helicopter, operating under 14 CFR
part 135, collided with trees resulting in fatal injuries to the pilot,
medical personnel and patient on board. The pilot performed a weather
check before accepting the flight and was provided flight monitoring by
the Spartanburg County Communications 911 Department of the Spartanburg
County Office of Emergency Services. The flight was conducted in night
visual, meteorological conditions were present, with mist and light fog
prevailing in the area of the accident site. The accident pilot was not
informed that other pilots had declined this mission due to fog. The
NTSB cited the pilot's failure to maintain terrain clearance as the
cause of the accident, and contributing factors included ``inadequate
weather and dispatch information relayed to the pilot.'' See NTSB
Accident Report CHI04MA182 (Jan. 26, 2006).
d. Preflight Risk Analysis
    On August 21, 2004, a Bell 407 helicopter, operating under 14 CFR
part 135 and en route to Washoe Medical Center in Reno, Nevada,
collided with mountainous terrain resulting in fatal injuries to the
pilot, two medical personnel, the patient's mother, and the infant
patient. The pilot had a choice of two routes, and he chose the direct
route over mountainous terrain instead of the route following the I-80
which was 10 minutes longer. The pilot chose the route through
mountainous terrain. The NTSB noted that there was no indication that
the pilot obtained a weather briefing before departure and that if he
had ``he would have likely learned of the cloud cover and light
precipitation present along his planned route of flight.'' The NTSB
cited the pilot's lack of maintaining sufficient clearance of
mountainous terrain as the cause of this accident, and other
contributing factors such as the pilot's improper decision to take the
direct route over mountainous terrain in dark night conditions. See
NTSB Accident Report SEA04MA167 (Jan. 26, 2006).
    On November 29, 1998, a McDonnell Douglas MD-900 helicopter, en
route to St. Alphonsus hospital heliport in Boise, ID, and operating
under 14 CFR part 135, struck unmarked transmission wires when
departing from a car accident site resulting in major damage to four of
the five main rotor blades. No injuries were sustained by the flight
crew, medical personnel, or patient on board. The NTSB cited the pilot
and ground crew's failure to identify the existence of the wires as
factors contributing to this accident. The FAA believes that a pre-
flight review of the proposed landing site may have prevented this
accident. See NTSB Accident Report SEA99LA016 (Jan. 11, 2000).
    On November 19, 1993, a Bell 206L helicopter, operating under part
135 rules landed hard in the Atlantic Ocean resulting in fatal injuries
to all three passengers and serious injuries to the pilot during
nighttime conditions. The pilot, operating at night under VFR,
encountered inadvertent IMC and crashed. The NTSB determined the cause
of the accident was the pilot's continued VFR flight into IMC, and
contributing factors included weather, dark night, and rough sea
conditions. See NTSB Accident Report BFO94FA013 (Nov. 1, 1994).

2. Equipment Requirements

a. Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems
    On December 12, 1996, a Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohn BO-105CBS
helicopter, operating under part 135, collided with terrain at night in
instrument conditions while transporting a patient to a hospital in
Rochester, NY. Witnesses observed that cloud cover and the isolated
area made for a dark night with no discernable horizon. About two
minutes after the pilot's departure for the hospital, the helicopter
collided with terrain resulting in fatal injuries to all on board. The
NTSB stated the cause for this accident was ``the pilot's failure to
maintain altitude/clearance from the terrain,'' and other factors
relating to the accident included ``darkness, low ceiling, rising
terrain, and high wind condition.'' See NTSB Accident Report IAD97FA032
(Jul. 31, 2008).
b. Light-Weight Aircraft Recording System (LARS)
    On June 29, 2008, two Bell 407 helicopters collided in midair while
approaching the Flagstaff Medical Center helipad. Both helicopters were
destroyed, and all seven persons aboard the two aircraft were fatally
injured. Day VMC prevailed. The NTSB determined that the probable cause
of this accident was both helicopter pilots' failure to see and avoid
the other helicopter on approach to the helipad. Contributing to the
accident were the failure of the pilot of one of the helicopters to
follow arrival and noise abatement guidelines and the failure of the
pilot of the other helicopter to follow communications guidelines. The
NTSB noted that ``had either operator established a formal flight-
monitoring program, the use of non-standard procedures might have led
the operators to take corrective action that could have prevented the
two helicopters from arriving at the same helipad on different approach
angles that particular day.'' See NTSB Accident Report DEN08MA116A/B
(May 7, 2009).
    On May 27, 1993, an Aerospatiale AS 350B helicopter, operating
under 14 CFR part 135, crashed into terrain near Cameron, MO, resulting
in fatal injuries to the pilot and patient and serious injuries to
medical personnel. The NTSB found that the accident was a result of
loss of engine power due to the failure of the second state turbine
labyrinth seal. In its factual report, the NTSB noted that aircraft
manufacturer representatives described that a crack could develop under
thermal low cycle fatigue, then develop as `` `subsequent distortion
leads to rub between the inner diameter of the hub and the inner
turbine labyrinth lips.' '' An appropriately equipped LARS could
capture audio files for acoustic analysis of dynamic components in the
event of an accident or incident. Such mechanical failures could be
detectable by LARS equipped to record ambient audio files. See NTSB
Accident Report CHI93FA182 (Jun. 24, 1994).

B. Commercial Helicopter Operations (Including Air Ambulance
Operations)

2. Equipment Requirements

a. Radar Altimeter
    On July 23, 2003, a Bell 206B helicopter, operating under 14 CFR
part 135, crashed into the inside wall of the Waialeale Crater, Kauai,
HI, fatally injuring the pilot and all four passengers. This
sightseeing tour originated at the Lihue Airport in Kauai under VFR
conditions. During the flight, the pilot encountered clouds and a low
ceiling. The pilot descended into the mountain side. The NTSB
determined the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's failure
to maintain ``adequate terrain clearance/altitude while descending over
mountainous terrain'' and continued flight into adverse weather. The
contributing factors were clouds and a low ceiling. See NTSB

Accident Report LAX03FA241 (Sept. 14, 2007).
    On January 10, 2005, a Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH EC-135 P2
helicopter, operating under part 91, crashed in the Potomac River,
fatally injuring the pilot and paramedic and seriously injuring the
flight nurse. During low-altitude cruise flight, the helicopter
impacted water without any distress warning from the pilot. The NTSB
noted the cause of this accident was ``the pilot's failure to identify
and arrest the helicopter's descent, which resulted in controlled
flight into terrain.'' Other factors identified by the NTSB included
the dark night conditions and a lack of an operable radio altimeter.
NTSB Accident Report NYC05MA039 (Dec. 20, 2007).

3. Training--Recovery From Inadvertent Flight Into IMC

    On September 20, 1995, a Bell 206L helicopter, operating under 14
CFR part 91, was substantially damaged after the pilot inadvertently
encountered IMC and lost control. The NTSB found that the pilot's
failure to maintain control of the helicopter was the cause of this
accident. It cited the pilot's inadvertent VFR flight into IMC
conditions as a factor contributing to the accident. See NTSB Accident
ID CHI95LA327.
    On December 23, 2003, an Augusta A109A helicopter, operated under
part 91 en route to pick up a patient during a helicopter air ambulance
operation, collided with mountainous terrain near Redwood Valley, CA,
while trying to reverse course following an encounter with night IMC.
The crash fatally injured all on board and destroyed the helicopter.
The NTSB determined the cause of the accident was the pilot's improper
in-flight planning and decision to continue flight under visual flight
rules into deteriorating weather conditions which resulted in an
inadvertent in-flight encounter with IMC. See NTSB Accident ID
LAX04FA076.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 120

    Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Alcohol testing, Aviation
safety, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Operators, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Safety-sensitive, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    2. Amend Sec.  1.1 by revising the definition of ``Extended over-
water operation'' to read as follows:

Sec.  1.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Extended over-water operation means an operation over water at a
horizontal distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest
shoreline.
* * * * *

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

    3. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717,
44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180).

    4. Amend Sec.  91.155 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  91.155  Basic VFR weather minimums.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Helicopter. A helicopter may be operated clear of clouds if
operated at a speed that allows the pilot adequate opportunity to see
and avoid other air traffic or obstruction in time to avoid a
collision, provided the visibility is at least--
    (i) One half statute mile during the day; or
    (ii) One statute mile at night.
* * * * *

PART 120--DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAM

    5. The authority citation for part 120 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101-40103, 40113, 40120, 41706,
41721, 44106, 44701, 44702, 44703, 44709, 44710, 44711, 45101-45105,
46105, 46306.

    6. Amend Sec.  120.105 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  120.105  Employees who must be tested.

* * * * *
    (i) Operations control specialist duties.
    7. Amend Sec.  120.215 by adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as
follows:

Sec.  120.215  Covered employees.

    (a) * * *
    (9) Operations control specialist duties.
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

    8. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.

    9. Amend Sec.  135.1 by adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:

Sec.  135.1  Applicability.

    (a) * * *
    (9) Helicopter air ambulance operations with medical personnel, as
defined in Sec.  135.601(b)(4), on board the aircraft.
* * * * *
    10. Amend Sec.  135.63 by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (c) and revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  135.63  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Each certificate holder is responsible for the preparation and
accuracy of a load manifest containing information concerning the
loading of the aircraft. The manifest must be prepared in duplicate
unless the certificate holder receives a copy of the load manifest, by
electronic or other means, at its principal operations base or at
another location used by it and approved by the FAA prior to the
aircraft's take off. The load manifest must be prepared before each
take off and must include:
* * * * *
    (d) The pilot in command of an aircraft for which a load manifest
must be prepared must carry a copy of the completed load manifest in
the aircraft to its destination and, unless the certificate holder
receives a copy of the load manifest prior to take off as provided for
in paragraph (c) of this section, arrange at the takeoff location for a
copy to be sent to the certificate

holder, retained in a suitable place at the takeoff location, or
retained in another location approved by the FAA until the flight is
complete. The certificate holder shall keep copies of completed load
manifests for at least 30 days at its principal operations base, or at
another location used by it and approved by the FAA.
    11. Add Sec.  135.160 to read as follows:

Sec.  135.160  Radio altimeters for rotorcraft operations.

    After [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], no
person may operate a rotorcraft unless that rotorcraft is equipped with
an operable FAA-approved radio altimeter, or an FAA-approved device
that incorporates a radio altimeter, unless otherwise authorized in the
certificate holder's approved minimum equipment list.
    12. Amend Sec.  135.167 by revising the section heading and the
introductory text of paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  135.167  Emergency equipment: Extended over-water operations--
Aircraft other than rotorcraft.

    (a) Except where the FAA amends the operations specifications of
the certificate holder to require the carriage of any or all specific
items of the equipment listed below for any over-water operation, or
allows a deviation for a particular extended over-water operation in
response to an application by a certificate holder, no person may
operate an aircraft other than a rotorcraft in extended over-water
operations unless it carries, installed in conspicuously marked
locations easily accessible to the occupants if a ditching occurs, the
following equipment:
* * * * *
    13. Add Sec.  135.168 to read as follows:

Sec.  135.168  Emergency equipment: Over-water and extended over-water
operations--Rotorcraft.

    (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply--
    (1) Over-water operation: A flight beyond autorotational distance
from the shoreline.
    (2) Shoreline means that area of the land adjacent to the water of
an ocean, sea, lake, pond, river, or tidal basin that is above the
high-water mark at which a rotorcraft could be landed safely. This does
not include land areas which are unsuitable for landing such as
vertical cliffs or land intermittently under water.
    (b) Over-water operations. After [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE], except where the FAA amends the operations
specifications of the certificate holder to require the carriage of all
or any specific items of the equipment listed below, allows a deviation
for a particular operation, or the over-water operation is necessary
only for takeoff or landing, no person may operate a rotorcraft in
over-water operations unless it carries, installed in conspicuously
marked locations easily accessible to the occupants in the event of an
emergency water landing, the following equipment:
    (1) Approved life preservers equipped with an approved survivor
locator light, which must be worn by each occupant of the rotorcraft
from take off until the flight is no longer over water;
    (2) One approved pyrotechnic signaling device;
    (3) Enough life rafts of a rated capacity and buoyancy to
accommodate the maximum number of occupants the rotorcraft is
certificated to carry;
    (4) An approved, automatically deployable, survival-type emergency
locator transmitter (ELT) in each life raft. Batteries used in ELTs
must be maintained in accordance with the following --
    (i) Non-rechargeable batteries must be replaced when the
transmitter has been in use for more than 1 cumulative hour or when 50
percent of their useful lives have expired, as established by the
transmitter manufacturer under its approval. The new expiration date
for replacing the batteries must be legibly marked on the outside of
the transmitter. The battery useful life requirements of this paragraph
do not apply to batteries (such as water-activated batteries) that are
essentially unaffected during probable storage intervals; or
    (ii) Rechargeable batteries used in the transmitter must be
recharged when the transmitter has been in use for more than 1
cumulative hour or when 50 percent of their useful-life-of-charge has
expired, as established by the transmitter manufacturer under its
approval. The new expiration date for recharging the batteries must be
legibly marked on the outside of the transmitter. The battery useful-
life-of-charge requirements of this paragraph do not apply to batteries
(such as water-activated batteries) that are essentially unaffected
during probable storage intervals;
    (5) Each life raft required under this paragraph must be
electronically deployable, or externally mounted and accessible, and
equipped with--
    (i) One survival kit, appropriate for the route to be flown, or
    (ii) Contain at least the following--
    (A) One approved day/night signaling device;
    (B) One life raft repair kit;
    (C) One bailing bucket;
    (D) One signaling mirror;
    (E) One police whistle;
    (F) One raft knife;
    (G) One inflation pump;
    (H) One 75-foot retaining line;
    (I) One magnetic compass;
    (J) One dye marker or equivalent; and
    (K) One fishing kit.
    (c) Extended over-water operations. After [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], except where the FAA amends the
operations specifications of the certificate holder to require the
carriage of all or any specific items of the equipment listed below or
allows a deviation for a particular operation, no person may operate a
rotorcraft in extended over-water operations unless it carries,
installed in conspicuously marked locations easily accessible to the
occupants in the event of an emergency water landing, the following
equipment:
    (1) Approved life preservers equipped with an approved survivor
locator light, which must be worn by each occupant of the rotorcraft
during the duration of the flight
    (2) The equipment listed in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of
this section;
    (3) One flashlight having at least two operable size ``D'' cell or
equivalent batteries; and
    (4) Each life raft required under this paragraph must be
electronically deployable or externally mounted and accessible, and
equipped with or contain at least the following--
    (i) The equipment listed in paragraph (b)(5) of this section;
    (ii) One radar reflector;
    (iii) One canopy (for sail, sunshade, or rain catcher);
    (iv) Two pints of water per each person the life raft is rated to
carry, or one sea water desalting kit for each two persons the life
raft is rated to carry; and
    (v) One book on survival appropriate for the area in which the
rotorcraft is operated.
    (d) Passenger Briefing. Passengers carried in over-water or
extended over-water operations must be briefed on the following:
    (1) Procedures for fastening and unfastening seatbelts;
    (2) Procedures for opening exits and exiting the rotorcraft;
    (3) Procedures for water ditching;
    (4) Requirements for the use of life preservers;
    (5) Procedures for emergency exit from the rotorcraft in the event
of a water landing; and
    (6) The location and use of life rafts and other floatation devices
prior to flight.
    (e) Maintenance. The equipment required by this section must be

maintained in accordance with Sec.  135.419.
    (f) ELT Standards. The ELT required by paragraph (b)(4) of this
section must meet the requirements in Technical Standard Order (TSO)-
C126a. Technical Standard Order C126a, 406 MHz Emergency Locator
Transmitter (ELT), December 17, 2008, is incorporated by reference into
this section with the approval of the Director of the Office of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent
Distribution Office, DOT Warehouse M30, Ardmore East Business Center,
3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Copies are also available on the FAA's Web site. Use the following
link: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgTSO.nsf/0/0ac772bbed9b95a586257523007629b3/$FILE/TSO-C126a.pdf. All
approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
    (g) ELT Alternative Compliance. Operators with an ELT required by
paragraph (b)(4) of this section that meets a later version of TSO-
C126a, or an ELT with an approved deviation under Sec.  21.609 of this
chapter, also are in compliance with this section.
    14. Revise Sec.  135.221 to read as follows:

Sec.  135.221  IFR: Alternate airport weather minima.

    (a) Aircraft other than rotorcraft. No person may designate an
alternate airport unless the weather reports or forecasts, or any
combination of them, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or
above authorized alternate airport landing minima for that airport at
the estimated time of arrival.
    (b) Rotorcraft. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no person
may include an alternate airport or heliport in an IFR flight plan
unless appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a
combination of them, indicate that, at the estimated time of arrival at
the alternate airport or heliport, the ceiling and visibility at that
airport or heliport will be at or above the following weather minima -
    (1) If, for that airport or heliport, an instrument approach
procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter, or a special
instrument approach procedure has been issued by the FAA to the
operator, the ceiling is 200 feet above the minimum for the approach to
be flown, and visibility is at least 1 statute mile but never less than
the minimum visibility for the approach to be flown.
    (2) If, for the alternate airport or heliport, no instrument
approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter and no
special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the FAA to the
operator, the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent
from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
    15. Amend Sec.  135.267 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  135.267  Flight time limitations and rest requirements:
Unscheduled one- and two-pilot crews.

* * * * *
    (g) For purposes of this section the term ``flight time'' includes
any helicopter air ambulance operation with medical personnel, as
defined in Sec.  135.601, on board the helicopter.
    16. Amend Sec.  135.271 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  135.271  Helicopter hospital emergency medical evacuation service
(HEMES).

* * * * *
    (j) For purposes of this section the term ``flight time'' includes
any HEMES operations with medical personnel, as defined in Sec.
135.601, on board the helicopter.
    17. Amend Sec.  135.293 by--
    a. Removing the word ``and'' from the end of paragraph (a)(7)(iii);
    b. Removing the period and adding ``; and'' in its place at the end
of paragraph (a)(8);
    c. Adding paragraph (a)(9);
    d. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (f) as paragraphs (d)
through (g) respectively; and
    e. Adding new paragraph (c).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  135.293  Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (9) For rotorcraft pilots, procedures for aircraft handling in
flat-light, whiteout, and brownout conditions, including methods for
recognizing and avoiding those conditions.
* * * * *
    (c) Each competency check for a rotorcraft pilot must include a
demonstration of the pilot's ability to maneuver the rotorcraft solely
by reference to instruments. The check must determine the pilot's
ability to safely maneuver the rotorcraft into visual meteorological
conditions following an inadvertent encounter with instrument
meteorological conditions. For competency checks in non-IFR-certified
rotorcraft, the pilot must perform such maneuvers as are appropriate to
the rotorcraft's installed equipment, the certificate holder's
operations specifications, and the operating environment.
* * * * *

Sec.  135.297  [Amended]

    18. Amend Sec.  135.297 by removing the reference to ``Sec.
135.293 (d)'' and adding ``Sec.  135.293 (e)'' in its place in the last
sentence of paragraph (c) introductory text.
    19. Add subpart L to part 135 to read as follows:

Subpart L--Helicopter Air Ambulance Equipment, Operations, and Training
Requirements
Sec.
135.601 Applicability and definitions.
135.603 Pilot-in-command qualifications.
135.605 Helicopter terrain awareness and warning system (HTAWS).
135.607 VFR minimum altitudes and visibility requirements.
135.609 IFR operations at locations without weather reporting.
135.611 VFR/visual transitions from instrument approaches.
135.613 VFR flight planning.
135.615 Pre-flight risk analysis.
135.617 Operations control centers.
135.619 Medical personnel briefing requirements.

Subpart L--Helicopter Air Ambulance Equipment, Operation, and
Training Requirements

Sec.  135.601  Applicability and definitions.

    (a) Applicability. This subpart prescribes the requirements
applicable to each certificate holder conducting helicopter air
ambulance operations.
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this subpart, the following
definitions apply.
    (1) Helicopter air ambulance means a helicopter used in helicopter
air ambulance operations by a part 135 certificate holder authorized by
the FAA to conduct helicopter air ambulance operations.
    (2) Helicopter air ambulance operation means a flight, or sequence
of flights, conducted for the purpose of transporting a person in need
of medical care, or a donor organ, by helicopter air ambulance. This
includes, but is not limited to--
    (i) Flights conducted to position the helicopter at the site at
which a patient or donor organ will be picked up;
    (ii) Flights conducted to reposition the helicopter after
completing the patient, or donor organ transport; and

    (iii) Flights initiated for the transport of a patient or donor
organ that are terminated due to weather or other reasons.
    (3) Medical personnel means persons with medical training,
including but not limited to a flight physician, a flight nurse, or a
flight paramedic, who are carried aboard a helicopter during helicopter
air ambulance operations in order to provide medical care.
    (4) Mountainous means designated mountainous areas as defined in
part 95 of this chapter.
    (5) Non-mountainous means areas other than mountainous areas as
defined in part 95 of this chapter.

Sec.  135.603  Pilot-in-command qualifications.

    After [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], no
certificate holder may use, nor may any person serve as, a pilot in
command of a helicopter air ambulance operation unless that person
meets the requirements of Sec.  135.243 and holds a helicopter
instrument rating or an airline transport pilot certificate with a
category and class rating for that aircraft, that is not limited to
VFR.

Sec.  135.605  Helicopter terrain awareness and warning system (HTAWS).

    (a) No person may operate a helicopter in helicopter air ambulance
operations after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE],
unless that helicopter is equipped with a helicopter terrain awareness
and warning system (HTAWS) that meets the requirements in Technical
Standard Order (TSO)-C194. Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C194
Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System, December 17, 2008, is
incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the
Director of the Office of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, DOT Warehouse M30,
Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies are also available on the FAA's Web
site. Use the following link: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_
and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/
532109AB059EC23D8625762000573A1E?OpenDocument. All approved material is
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) Operators with HTAWS required by this section that meets a
later version of TSO-C194, or HTAWS with an approved deviation under
Sec.  21.609 of this chapter, also are in compliance with this section.
    (c) The certificate holder's Rotorcraft Flight Manual must contain
appropriate procedures for--
    (1) The use of the HTAWS; and
    (2) Proper flight crew response to HTAWS audio and visual warnings.

Sec.  135.607  VFR minimum altitudes and visibility requirements.

    Unless specified in the certificate holder's operations
specifications, when conducting helicopter air ambulance operations in
Class G airspace with medical personnel on board, the following weather
minima and visibility requirements apply--
    (a) In non-mountainous local flying areas--
    (1) During the day, 800-foot ceiling and 2 statute miles
visibility.
    (2) At night--
    (i) When equipped with an FAA-approved night-vision imaging system
(NVIS) or an FAA-approved HTAWS, 800-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles
visibility; or
    (ii) When not equipped with an FAA-approved NVIS or an FAA-approved
HTAWS, 1,000-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles visibility.
    (b) In non-mountainous cross-country flying areas--
    (1) During the day, 800-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles
visibility.
    (2) At night--
    (i) When equipped with an FAA-approved NVIS or an FAA-approved
HTAWS, 1,000-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles visibility; or
    (ii) When not equipped with an FAA-approved NVIS or an FAA-approved
HTAWS, 1,000-foot ceiling and 5 statute miles visibility.
    (c) In mountainous local flying areas--
    (1) During the day, 800-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles
visibility.
    (2) At night--
    (i) When equipped with an FAA-approved NVIS or an FAA-approved
HTAWS, 1,000-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles visibility; or
    (ii) When not equipped with an FAA-approved NVIS or an FAA-approved
HTAWS, 1,500-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles visibility.
    (d) In mountainous cross-country flying areas--
    (1) During the day, 1,000-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles
visibility.
    (2) At night--
    (i) When equipped with an FAA-approved NVIS or an FAA-approved
HTAWS, 1,000-foot ceiling and 5 statute miles visibility; or
    (ii) When not equipped with an FAA-approved NVIS or an FAA-approved
HTAWS, 1,500-foot ceiling and 5 statute miles visibility.
    (e) Each certificate holder must designate a local flying area for
each base of operations at which helicopter air ambulance services are
conducted, in a manner acceptable to the FAA, that must--
    (1) Not exceed 50 nautical miles in any direction from the
helicopter's base of operations;
    (2) Take into account man-made and natural geographic terrain
features that are easily identifiable by the pilot in command and from
which the pilot in command may visually determine a position at all
times; and
    (3) Take into account the operating environment and capabilities of
the certificate holder's aircraft.

Sec.  135.609  IFR operations at locations without weather reporting.

    (a) If a certificate holder is authorized to conduct helicopter IFR
operations, the FAA may issue operations specifications to allow that
certificate holder to conduct IFR operations at airports or heliports
with an instrument approach procedure and at which a weather report is
not available from the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS), a source
approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA, subject to the
following limitations:
    (1) In Class G airspace, IFR departures are authorized only after
the pilot in command of the affected flight determines that the weather
conditions at the departure point are at or above VFR minima in
accordance with Sec.  135.607;
    (2) The certificate holder must obtain a weather report from a
weather reporting facility operated by the NWS, a source approved by
the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA, that is located within 15
nautical miles of the destination landing area. In addition, the
certificate holder must obtain the area forecast from the NWS, a source
approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA, for information
regarding the weather observed in the vicinity of the destination
landing area;
    (3) Flight planning for IFR flights conducted under this paragraph
must include selection of an alternate airport that meets the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  135.221 and 135.223; and
    (4) All approaches must be at Category A approach speeds or those
required for the type of approach being used.

    (b) Each helicopter air ambulance operated under this section must
be--
    (1) Fully equipped and certified to conduct IFR operations under
this part;
    (2) Equipped with functioning severe weather-detection equipment,
such as airborne weather radar or lightning detection;
    (3) Equipped with an operable autopilot, if used in lieu of the
second in command required by Sec.  135.101; and
    (4) Equipped with navigation equipment appropriate to the approach
to be flown.
    (c) Each pilot in command who conducts operations under this
section must--
    (1) Have a current Sec.  135.297 pilot-in-command instrument
proficiency check;
    (2) Be certificated to conduct the permitted IFR operations;
    (3) Be trained in accordance with the certificate holder's approved
training program and annually complete an approved course that
includes, but is not limited to--
    (i) A review of IFR regulations found in this part and parts 1, 61,
and 91 of this chapter, and IFR operations found in the Aeronautical
Information Manual;
    (ii) Interpreting weather, weather reports, and weather forecasts;
    (iii) Reviewing instrument charts;
    (iv) Crew resource management;
    (v) Methods for determining weather observations by the pilot in
command, including present visibility and ceilings; and
    (vi) Approaches authorized under this section;
    (4) Be qualified in accordance with the requirements of this part;
    (5) Be current in all requirements to perform operations under IFR
in the make or model of helicopter being used; and
    (6) Be tested and checked on IFR operations at uncontrolled
airports.
    (d) Pilots conducting operations pursuant to this section may use
the weather information obtained in paragraph (a) to satisfy the
weather report and forecast requirements of Sec.  135.213 and Sec.
135.225(a).
    (e) After completing a landing at the destination airport or
heliport at which a weather report is not available, the pilot in
command is authorized to determine if the weather meets the takeoff
requirements of part 97 of this chapter or the certificate holder's
operations specification, as applicable.

Sec.  135.611  VFR/visual transitions from instrument approaches.

    (a) Transitions from IFR flight to VFR flight on approach to a
heliport or landing area--
    (1) If an approved visual segment exists as part of an approved
instrument approach procedure, the appropriate associated minima on the
approach chart apply.
    (2) Unless authorized by the FAA, the following VFR weather minima
apply when conducting an authorized IFR Point in Space (PinS) Copter
Special Instrument Approach Procedure--
    (i) If the proceed-VFR segment to the heliport of intended landing
is within 1 nautical mile of the missed approach point, and is within
the obstacle evaluation area, visibility must be at least 1 statute
mile.
    (ii) If the proceed-VFR segment is 3 nautical miles or less from
the heliport or landing area and does not meet the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, then--
    (A) Day Operations: 600-foot ceiling/2 statute miles visibility.
    (B) Night Operations: 600-foot ceiling/3 statute miles visibility.
    (3) Unless authorized by the FAA, the following VFR weather minima
apply when conducting an authorized IFR Standard or Special Instrument
Approach Procedure and transitions to VFR at the missed approach point
that is 3 nautical miles or less from the heliport or landing area--
    (i) Day Operations: 600-foot ceiling/2 statute miles visibility.
    (ii) Night Operations: 600-foot ceiling/3 statute miles visibility.
    (4) If the distance from the missed approach point to the heliport
or landing area exceeds 3 nautical miles, the minimum altitudes and
visibility requirements of Sec.  135.607 apply.
    (b) Transitions from VFR to IFR upon departure from a heliport or
landing area--
    (1) A pilot may use the VFR weather minima of paragraph (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of this section to depart a heliport or landing area if--
    (i) The operator follows an FAA-approved obstacle departure
procedure;
    (ii) The operator has filed an IFR flight plan and obtains an IFR
clearance upon reaching a predetermined location; and
    (iii) The distance from the departure location to the point at
which IFR clearance will be obtained does not exceed 3 nautical miles.
    (2) If the operator cannot meet the departure requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section then the minimum altitudes and
visibility requirements of Sec.  135.607 apply.

Sec.  135.613  VFR flight planning.

    (a) Pre-flight: Prior to conducting VFR operations, the pilot in
command must--
    (1) Determine the minimum safe cruise altitude by evaluating the
terrain and obstacles along the planned route of flight;
    (2) Identify and document the highest obstacle along the planned
route of flight; and
    (3) Using the minimum safe cruise altitudes, determine the minimum
required ceiling and visibility to conduct the planned flight by
applying the weather minima appropriate to the conditions of the
planned flight, including the requirements of this subpart and the
visibility and cloud clearance requirements of Sec.  91.155(a) of this
chapter, as applicable to the class of airspace for the planned flight.
    (b) During flight: While conducting VFR operations, the pilot in
command must ensure that all terrain and obstacles along the route of
flight, except for takeoff and landing, can be cleared vertically by no
less than the following:
    (1) 300 feet for day operations.
    (2) 500 feet for night operations.
    (c) Re-routing the planned flight path: A pilot in command may
deviate from the planned flight path as required by conditions or
operational considerations. During such deviations, the pilot in
command is not relieved from the weather or terrain/obstruction
clearance requirements of this part and part 91 of this chapter. Re-
routing, change in destination, or other changes to the planned flight
that occur while the aircraft is on the ground at an intermediate stop
require evaluation of the new route in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this section.
    (d) Operations manual: Each certificate holder must document its
VFR flight planning procedures in its operations manual.

Sec.  135.615  Pre-flight risk analysis.

    (a) Each certificate holder conducting helicopter air ambulance
operations must establish, and document in its operations manual, an
FAA-approved procedure for conducting pre-flight risk analyses that
include at least the following items--
    (1) Flight considerations, to include obstacles and terrain along
the planned route of flight, landing zone conditions, and fuel
requirements;
    (2) Human factors, such as crew fatigue, life events, and other
stressors;
    (3) Weather, including departure, en route, destination, and
forecasted;
    (4) Whether another helicopter air ambulance operator has refused
or rejected a flight request; and
    (5) Strategies and procedures for mitigating identified risks,
including procedures for obtaining and documenting approval of the
certificate holder's management personnel to

release a flight when a risk exceeds a level predetermined by the
certificate holder.
    (b) Each certificate holder must develop a pre-flight risk analysis
worksheet to include, at a minimum, the items in paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (c) Prior to the first leg of each helicopter air ambulance
operation, the pilot in command must conduct and document on the risk
analysis worksheet a pre-flight risk analysis in accordance with the
certificate holder's FAA-approved procedures. The pilot in command must
sign the risk analysis worksheet and specify the date and time it was
completed.
    (d) The certificate holder must retain the original or a copy of
each completed pre-flight risk analysis worksheet at a location
specified in its operations manual for at least 90 days from the date
of the operation.

Sec.  135.617  Operations control centers.

    (a) After [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]
certificate holders authorized to conduct helicopter air ambulance
operations, with 10 or more helicopter air ambulances assigned to the
certificate holder's operations specifications, must have an operations
control center, staffed by operations control specialists who, at a
minimum--
    (1) Provide two-way communications with pilots;
    (2) Provide pilots with weather briefings, to include current and
forecasted weather along the planned route of flight;
    (3) Monitor the progress of the flight; and
    (4) Participate in the pre-flight risk analysis required under
Sec.  135.615 to include the following:
    (i) Ensure pilot has completed all required items on the FAA-
approved pre-flight risk analysis form;
    (ii) Confirm and verify all entries on pre-flight risk analysis
form;
    (iii) Assist the pilot in mitigating any identified risk prior to
takeoff; and
    (iv) Acknowledge in writing, specifying the date and time, that the
risk analysis worksheet has been accurately completed and that,
according to their professional judgment, the flight can be conducted
safely.
    (b) Each certificate holder conducting helicopter air ambulance
operations must provide enough operations control specialists at each
operations control center to ensure proper operational control of each
flight.
    (c) Each certificate holder must describe in its operations manual
the duties and responsibilities of operations control specialists,
including pre-flight risk mitigation strategies and control measures,
shift change checklist, and its training and testing procedures to hold
the position, including procedures for retesting.
    (d) No certificate holder may use, nor may any person serve as, an
operations control specialist unless that person has satisfactorily
completed the training required by paragraph (e) of this section.
    (e) No person may perform the duties of an operations control
specialist before completing the certificate holder's FAA-approved
operations control specialist training program and passing an FAA-
approved written knowledge and a practical test given by the
certificate holder as required by this paragraph. No person may
continue performing the duties of an operations control specialist
unless that person has completed the certificate holder's FAA-approved
recurrent training program and passed an FAA-approved written knowledge
test and a practical test given by the certificate holder as required
by this paragraph.
    (1) Initial training must include a minimum of 80 hours of training
on the topics listed in paragraph (g) of this section. A certificate
holder may reduce the number of hours of initial training to a minimum
of 40 hours for persons who have obtained, at the time of beginning
initial training, a total of at least 2 years of experience during the
last 5 years in any one or in any combination of the following areas--
    (i) In military aircraft operations as a pilot, flight navigator,
or meteorologist;
    (ii) In air carrier operations as a pilot, flight engineer,
certified aircraft dispatcher, or meteorologist; or
    (iii) In aircraft operations as an air traffic controller or a
flight service specialist.
    (2) Each operations control specialist must receive a minimum of 40
hours of recurrent training on the topics listed in paragraph (g) of
this section and pass an FAA approved written knowledge test and
practical test given by the certificate holder on those topics within
the calendar month of the anniversary of passing the initial practical
test. Recurrent training and examinations may be completed in the
calendar month before, the calendar month of, or the calendar month
after they are due.
    (f) The certificate holder must maintain a training record for each
operations control specialist employed by the certificate holder for
the duration of that individual's employment and for 90 days
thereafter. Each training record must include a chronological log of
all instructors, subjects covered, and course examinations and results.
    (g) Each certificate holder must have an FAA-approved operations
control specialist training program that covers at least the following
topics--
    (1) Aviation weather, to include:
    (i) General meteorology;
    (ii) Prevailing weather;
    (iii) Adverse and deteriorating weather;
    (iv) Windshear;
    (v) Icing conditions;
    (vi) Use of aviation weather products;
    (vii) Available sources of information; and
    (viii) Weather minima;
    (2) Navigation, to include:
    (i) Navigation aids;
    (ii) Instrument approach procedures;
    (iii) Navigational publications; and
    (iv) Navigation techniques;
    (3) Flight monitoring, to include:
    (i) Available flight-monitoring procedures; and
    (ii) Alternate flight-monitoring procedures;
    (4) Air traffic control, to include:
    (i) Airspace;
    (ii) Air traffic control procedures;
    (iii) Aeronautical charts; and
    (iv) Aeronautical data sources;
    (5) Aviation communication, to include:
    (i) Available aircraft communications systems;
    (ii) Normal communication procedures;
    (iii) Abnormal communication procedures; and
    (iv) Emergency communication procedures;
    (6) Aircraft systems, to include:
    (i) Communications systems;
    (ii) Navigation systems;
    (iii) Surveillance systems;
    (iv) Fueling systems;
    (v) Specialized systems;
    (vi) General maintenance requirements; and
    (vii) Minimum equipment lists;
    (7) Aircraft limitations and performance, to include:
    (i) Aircraft operational limitations;
    (ii) Aircraft performance;
    (iii) Weight and balance procedures and limitations; and
    (iv) Landing zone and landing facility requirements;
    (8) Aviation policy and regulations, to include:
    (i) 14 CFR parts 1, 27, 29, 61, 71, 91, and 135;
    (ii) 49 CFR part 830;
    (iii) Company operations specifications;
    (iv) Company general operations policies;
    (v) Enhanced operational control policies;
    (vi) Aeronautical decisionmaking and risk management;

    (vii) Lost procedures; and
    (viii) Emergency and search and rescue procedures, including
plotting coordinates in degrees, minutes, seconds format, and degrees,
decimal minutes format;
    (9) Crew resource management, to include:
    (i) Concepts and practical application;
    (ii) Risk management and risk mitigation; and
    (iii) Pre-flight risk analysis procedures required under Sec.
135.615;
    (10) Local flying area orientation, to include:
    (i) Terrain features;
    (ii) Obstructions;
    (iii) Weather phenomena for local area;
    (iv) Airspace and air traffic control facilities;
    (v) Heliports, airports, landing zones, and fuel facilities;
    (vi) Instrument approaches;
    (vii) Predominant air traffic flow;
    (viii) Landmarks and cultural features, including areas prone to
white out or brown out conditions; and
    (ix) Local aviation and safety resources and contact information;
and
    (11) Any other requirements as determined by the FAA to ensure safe
operations.
    (h) Operations control specialist duty time limitations.
    (1) Each certificate holder must establish the daily duty period
for an operations control specialist so that it begins at a time that
allows that person to become thoroughly familiar with operational
considerations, including existing and anticipated weather conditions
in the area of operations, helicopter operations in progress, and
helicopter maintenance status, before performing duties associated with
any helicopter air ambulance operation. The operations control
specialist must remain on duty until each helicopter air ambulance
monitored by that person has completed its flight, has gone beyond that
person's jurisdiction, or the operations control specialist is relieved
by another qualified operations control specialist.
    (2) Except in cases where circumstances or emergency conditions
beyond the control of the certificate holder require otherwise--
    (i) No certificate holder may schedule an operations control
specialist for more than 10 consecutive hours of duty;
    (ii) If an operations control specialist is scheduled for more than
10 hours of duty in 24 consecutive hours, the certificate holder must
provide that person a rest period of at least 8 hours at or before the
end of 10 hours of duty;
    (iii) If an operations control specialist is on duty for more than
10 consecutive hours, the certificate holder must provide that person a
rest period of at least 8 hours before that person's next duty period;
    (iii) Each operations control specialist must be relieved of all
duty with the certificate holder for at least 24 consecutive hours
during any 7 consecutive days.
    (i) Drug and Alcohol Testing. Operations control specialists must
be tested for drugs and alcohol according to the certificate holder's
Drug and Alcohol Testing Program administered under part 120 of this
chapter.

Sec.  135.619  Medical personnel briefing requirements.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, prior to
each helicopter air ambulance operation, each pilot in command, or
other flight crewmember designated by the certificate holder, must
ensure that all medical personnel have been--
    (1) Briefed on the topics included in Sec.  135.117(a) and (b); and
    (2) Briefed on the following topics--
    (i) Physiological aspects of flight;
    (ii) Patient loading and unloading;
    (iii) Safety in and around the aircraft;
    (iv) In-flight emergency procedures;
    (v) Emergency landing procedures;
    (vi) Emergency evacuation procedures;
    (vii) Efficient and safe communications with the pilot; and
    (viii) Operational differences between day and night operations, if
appropriate.
    (b) The briefing required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section may
be omitted if all medical personnel on board have satisfactorily
completed the certificate holder's FAA-approved medical personnel
training program within the preceding 24 calendar months. Each training
program must include a minimum of 4 hours of ground training, and 4
hours of training in and around an air ambulance helicopter, on the
topics set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (c) Each certificate holder must maintain a record for each person
trained under this section that--
    (1) Contains the individual's name, the most recent training
completion date, and a description, copy, or reference to training
materials used to meet the training requirement; and
    (2) Is maintained for 24 calendar months following the individual's
completion of training, and for 60 days thereafter.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2010.
Raymond Towles,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-24862 Filed 10-7-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P