[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9931-9979]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03689]

Vol. 79

Friday,

No. 35

February 21, 2014

Part II

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Aviation Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

14 CFR Parts 91, 120, and 135

 Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91
Helicopter Operations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 120, and 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2010-0982; Amdt. Nos. 91-330; 120-2; 135-129]
RIN 2120-AJ53

Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91
Helicopter Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule addresses helicopter air ambulance, commercial
helicopter, and general aviation helicopter operations. To address an
increase in fatal helicopter air ambulance accidents, the FAA is
implementing new operational procedures and additional equipment
requirements for helicopter air ambulance operations. This final rule
also increases safety for commercial helicopter operations by revising
requirements for equipment, pilot testing, and alternate airports. It
increases weather minimums for all general aviation helicopter
operations. Many of these requirements address National Transportation
Safety Board safety recommendations, and are already found in FAA
guidance. Today's changes are intended to provide certificate holders
and pilots with additional tools and procedures that will aid in
preventing accidents.

DATES: This rule is effective April 22, 2014. Affected parties,
however, do not have to comply with the information collection
requirements in Sec. Sec.  120.105(i), 120.215(a)(9), 135.615, 135.617,
135.619, and 135.621 until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approves the collection and assigns a control number under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The FAA will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of the control number assigned by OMB for these
information collection requirements.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
Sec. Sec.  135.168 and 135.605 is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of April 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
to Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions about this
action contact Andy Pierce, Aviation Safety Inspector, Flight Standards
Service, 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-250, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions about this action contact Dean E. Griffith,
Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-220, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
3073; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). This rulemaking is
promulgated under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f)
and 44701(a), and the specific authority set forth in section 306 of
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95), which is
now codified at 49 U.S.C. 44730.
    Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 44730 requires that part 135 certificate
holders providing air ambulance services comply with part 135
regulations pertaining to weather minimums and flight and duty time
when medical personnel are onboard the aircraft. The statute also
directs the FAA to conduct rulemaking on helicopter air ambulance
operations to address: (1) Flight request and dispatch procedures; (2)
pilot training standards for preventing controlled flight into terrain
and recovery from IIMC; and (3) safety-enhancing technology and
equipment, including, HTAWS, radio altimeters, and, to the extent
feasible, devices that perform the function of flight data recorders
and cockpit voice recorders. Further, section 44730 requires the
rulemaking to address: (1) Flight risk evaluation programs; and (2)
operational control centers for helicopter air ambulance services with
10 or more helicopters. In addition, the statute directs the FAA to
issue a final rule by June 1, 2012 with respect to the NPRM published
in the Federal Register on October 12, 2010 (75 FR 62640).

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Document

AC--Advisory Circular
ARC--Aviation Rulemaking Committee
AWOS--Automated Weather Observation System
CFIT--Controlled Flight into Terrain
CVR--Cockpit Voice Recorder
ELT--Emergency Locator Transmitter
EMS--Emergency Medical Service
FDR--Flight Data Recorder
FDMS--Flight Data Monitoring System
FOQA--Flight Operational Quality Assurance
GPS--Global Positioning System
HEMS--Helicopter Emergency Medical Services
HTAWS--Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR--Instrument Flight Rules
IMC--Instrument Meteorological Conditions
LARS--Light-weight Aircraft Recording System
MHz--Megahertz
MEL--Minimum Equipment List
MOU--Memorandum of Understanding
NM--Nautical Mile
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
NVG--Night Vision Goggles
NVIS--Night-Vision Imaging System
OCC--Operations Control Center
OCS--Operations Control Specialist
OpSpec--Operations Specification
PinS--Point-in-Space Approach
PV--Present Value
SAFO--Safety Alert for Operators
TAWS--Terrain Avoidance and Warning System
TSO--Technical Standard Order
VFR--Visual Flight Rules
VMC--Visual Meteorological Conditions

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. Related Actions
    C. NTSB Recommendations
    D. Congressional Action
    E. Summary of the NPRM
    F. General Overview of Comments
III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule
    A. Weather Minimums for Helicopters Flying Under Visual Flight
Rules in Class G Airspace (Sec.  91.155)
    B. Load Manifest Requirement for All Aircraft Operating Under
Part 135 (Sec.  135.63)
    C. Rules Applicable to All Part 135 Helicopter Operations
    1. Radio Altimeter (Sec.  135.160)
    2. Safety Equipment for Overwater Operations (Sec. Sec.  1.1,
135.117, 135.167, and 135.168)
    3. Pilot Testing for Recovery From IIMC, Whiteout, Brownout, and
Flat-Light Conditions (Sec.  135.293)
    4. IFR Alternate Airport Weather Minimums (Sec.  135.221)
    D. Rules Applicable to Helicopter Air Ambulance Operations
    1. Applicability of Part 135 Rules to Helicopter Air Ambulance
Operations (Sec. Sec.  135.1, 135.267, 135.271, 135.601)
    2. Weather Minimums (Sec.  135.609)
    3. IFR Operations at Airports Without Weather Reporting (Sec.
135.611)
    4. Approach/Departure IFR Transitions (Sec.  135.613)
    5. VFR Flight Planning (Sec.  135.615)
    6. Pre-Flight Risk Analysis (Sec.  135.617)
    7. Operations Control Centers (Sec. Sec.  135.619, 120.105, and
120.215)

    8. Briefing of Medical Personnel (Sec. Sec.  135.117, 135.621)
    9. Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (HTAWS)
(Sec.  135.605)
    10. Flight Data Monitoring System (Sec.  135.607)
    11. Pilot Instrument Ratings (Sec.  135.603)
    E. General Comments
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analysis
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    D. International Trade Impact Assessment
    E. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. International Compatibility
    H. Environmental Analysis
    I. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
V. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
VI. How To Obtain Additional Information
    A. Rulemaking Documents
    B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Table 1 Affected Entities
Table 2 Comparison of Benefits and Costs Over 10 Years by Population
Table 3 Costs Over 10 Years by Rule Provision
Table 4 VFR Minimum Altitudes and Visibility Requirements
Table 5 SBA Size Standards
Table 6 Cost and Present Value (PV) Costs for Small Air Ambulance
Operators That Apply to the Paperwork Provision

I. Executive Summary

    The provisions of this rule are directed primarily toward
helicopter air ambulance operations and all commercial helicopter
operations conducted under part 135. This rule also establishes new
weather minimums for helicopters operating under part 91 in Class G
airspace.
    For helicopter air ambulances, this rule requires operations with
medical personnel on board to be conducted under part 135 operating
rules and introduces new weather minimums and visibility requirements
for part 135 operations. It mandates flight planning, preflight risk
analyses, safety briefings for medical personnel, and the establishment
of operations control centers (OCC) for certain operators to help with
risk management and flight monitoring. The rule also includes
provisions to encourage instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. It
requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with both helicopter
terrain awareness and warning systems (HTAWS) (the HTAWS will warn
pilots about obstacles in their flight path), and flight data
monitoring systems. Finally, helicopter air ambulance pilots will be
required to hold instrument ratings.
    For all helicopters operated under part 135, these rules require
that operators carry more survival equipment for operations over water.
Alternate airports named in flight plans must have higher weather
minimums than are currently required. These helicopters must be
equipped with radio altimeters and pilots must be able to demonstrate
that they can maneuver the aircraft during an inadvertent encounter
with instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) to get out of those
conditions safely.
    Additionally, this rule contains a provision affecting part 91
helicopter operations. The rule assigns new weather minimums to part 91
helicopter operations in Class G airspace.
    Below, Table 1 shows those affected by today's new rules and how
existing rules are being changed; Table 2 shows the costs and benefits
of the rule by affected population; and Table 3 shows the cost of the
rule by rule provision.

                       Table 1--Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Requirements established by this
         Affected entities                          rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 91--All Helicopter Operators.  Revises Sec.   91.155 Class G
                                     airspace weather minimums for part
                                     91 helicopter operations. This rule
                                     provides a greater margin of safety
                                     for operators because pilots are
                                     required to maintain a fixed amount
                                     of visibility and would be less
                                     likely to suddenly encounter
                                     instrument meteorological
                                     conditions (IMC).
Part 135--All Rotorcraft Operators   Requires each rotorcraft to
                                     be equipped with a radio altimeter
                                     (Sec.   135.160). Radio altimeters
                                     can greatly improve a pilot's
                                     awareness of height above the
                                     ground during hover, landing in
                                     unimproved landing zones, and
                                     landings in confined areas where a
                                     more vertical approach may be
                                     required. Additionally, radio
                                     altimeters help increase
                                     situational awareness during
                                     inadvertent flight into instrument
                                     meteorological conditions (IIMC),
                                     night operations, and flat-light,
                                     whiteout, and brownout conditions.
                                     Adds Sec.   135.168
                                     equipment requirements for
                                     rotorcraft operated over water.
                                     Helicopter operations conducted
                                     over water will be required to
                                     carry additional safety equipment
                                     to assist passengers and crew in
                                     the event an accident occurs over
                                     water.
                                     Revises alternate airport
                                     weather minimums for rotorcraft in
                                     Sec.   135.221. This rule improves
                                     the likelihood of being able to
                                     land at the alternate airport if
                                     weather conditions in the area
                                     deteriorate while the helicopter is
                                     en route.
                                     Revises Sec.   135.293 to
                                     require pilot testing of rotorcraft
                                     handling in flat-light, whiteout,
                                     and brownout conditions and
                                     demonstration of competency in
                                     recovery from an IIMC. This rule
                                     improves safety by increasing a
                                     pilot's likelihood of escaping and
                                     handling IIMC and other hazards.
Part 135--Helicopter Air Ambulance   Requires helicopter air
 Operators..                         ambulance flights with medical
                                     personnel on board to be conducted
                                     under part 135 (Sec.  Sec.   135.1,
                                     135.601). The safety of helicopter
                                     air ambulance flights, including
                                     the welfare of the medical
                                     personnel and patients on board,
                                     will be increased when complying
                                     with the more stringent part 135
                                     rules rather than part 91 rules.
                                     Requires certificate
                                     holders with 10 or more helicopter
                                     air ambulances to establish
                                     operations control centers (OCC)
                                     (Sec.   135.619) and requires drug
                                     and alcohol testing for operations
                                     control specialists (Sec.  Sec.
                                     120.105 and 120.215). OCC personnel
                                     will communicate with pilots,
                                     provide weather information,
                                     monitor flights and assist with
                                     preflight risk assessments
                                     providing an additional measure of
                                     safety for complex operations.
                                     Operations control specialists
                                     perform safety-sensitive functions,
                                     similar to an aircraft dispatcher,
                                     and therefore must be subject to
                                     the restrictions on drug and
                                     alcohol use.
                                     Requires helicopter air
                                     ambulances to be equipped with
                                     HTAWS (Sec.   135.605). HTAWS will
                                     assist helicopter air ambulance
                                     pilots in maintaining situational
                                     awareness of surrounding terrain
                                     and obstacles, and therefore help
                                     prevent accidents.

                                     Requires helicopter air
                                     ambulances to be equipped with a
                                     flight data monitoring system (Sec.
                                       135.607). This will promote
                                     operational safety and can provide
                                     critical information to
                                     investigators in the event of an
                                     accident.
                                     Requires each helicopter
                                     air ambulance operator to establish
                                     and document, in its operations
                                     manual, an FAA-approved preflight
                                     risk analysis (Sec.   135.617). A
                                     preflight risk analysis provides
                                     certificate holders with the means
                                     to assess and mitigate risk, and
                                     make determinations regarding the
                                     flight's safety before launch.
                                     Requires pilots to identify
                                     and document the highest obstacle
                                     along the planned route (Sec.
                                     135.615). This rule will prevent
                                     obstacle collisions by requiring
                                     pilots to be aware of the terrain
                                     and obstacles along their route.
                                     Requires safety briefings
                                     or training for helicopter air
                                     ambulance medical personnel (Sec.
                                     135.621). Medical personnel will be
                                     less likely to inadvertently
                                     introduce risk to an operation
                                     because of increased familiarity
                                     with the aircraft and emergency
                                     procedures.
                                     Establishes visual flight
                                     rules (VFR) weather minimums for
                                     helicopter air ambulance operations
                                     (Sec.   135.609). More stringent
                                     VFR weather minimums for helicopter
                                     air ambulances operations in
                                     uncontrolled airspace will have the
                                     effect of ensuring that these
                                     operations are not conducted in
                                     marginal weather conditions.
                                     Permits instrument flight
                                     rules (IFR) operations at airports
                                     without weather reporting (Sec.
                                     135.611). This rule is intended to
                                     facilitate IFR operations by
                                     helicopter air ambulance operators
                                     and result in more aircraft
                                     operating in a positively
                                     controlled environment, thereby
                                     increasing safety.
                                     Establishes procedures for
                                     transitioning between IFR and VFR
                                     on approach to, and departure from,
                                     heliports or landing areas (Sec.
                                     135.613). This rule benefits pilots
                                     by enabling them to access more
                                     destinations by flying within the
                                     IFR structure and its associated
                                     safety benefits.
                                     Requires pilots in command
                                     to hold an instrument rating (Sec.
                                      135.603). Having the skills to
                                     navigate by instruments will assist
                                     helicopter air ambulance pilots to
                                     extract themselves from dangerous
                                     situations such as inadvertent
                                     flight into IMC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21FE14.000

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    Helicopter air ambulance accidents reached historic levels during
the years from 2003 through 2008.\1\ The year 2008 was the deadliest.
In 2008, five air ambulance accidents killed 21 people, including
pilots, patients, and medical personnel. This rule addresses the causes
of 62 helicopter air ambulance accidents that occurred during the
period from 1991 through 2010. One hundred twenty-five people died in
those accidents. The FAA identified four common factors in those
accidents--inadvertent flight into IMC, loss of control, controlled
flight into terrain (which includes mountains, ground, water, and man-
made obstacles), and night conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GAO, Aviation Safety: Potential Strategies to Address Air
Ambulance Safety Concerns (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Helicopter air ambulances operate under unique conditions. Their
flights are often time sensitive, which puts pressure on the pilots.
Helicopter air ambulances fly at low altitudes and under varied weather
conditions. They must often land at unfamiliar, remote, or unimproved
sites with hazards like trees, buildings, towers, wires, and uneven
terrain. In an emergency, many patients will not have a choice of
whether they want to be transported in a helicopter or not. They may be
in a medical condition that prevents them from making decisions about
transportation or indicating what they want. They cannot choose between
competing carriers because the company that responds to the scene may
be either the first one called or the only one in the area. For these
reasons, the FAA is establishing more stringent safety regulations to
protect patients, medical personnel, flightcrew members, and other
passengers onboard helicopter air ambulances.
    The FAA also identified an increase in accidents in other
commercial helicopter operations. This rule addresses the causes of 20
commercial helicopter accidents that occurred from 1991 through 2010.
Thirty-nine people died in those accidents. Also from 1991 to 2010,
there were 49 accidents that occurred while the helicopter was
operating under basic VFR weather minimums and those accidents caused
63 fatalities. The FAA has determined that these accidents may have
been prevented if pilots and helicopters were better equipped for IIMC,
flat-light, whiteout, and brownout conditions, and for flights over
water.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Flat light is the diffused lighting that occurs under cloudy
skies, especially when the ground is snow-covered, greatly impairing
the pilot's ability to perceive depth, distance, altitude, or
topographical features when operating under VFR. See NTSB Safety
Recommendation A-02-33. Whiteout occurs when parallel rays of the
sun are broken up and diffused when passing through the cloud layer
so that they strike a snow-covered surface from many angles. The
diffused light then reflects back and forth countless times between
the snow and the cloud, eliminating all shadows, resulting in loss
of depth perception. See FAA AC 00-6A, Aviation Weather for Pilots
and Flight Operations Personnel. Brownout conditions occur when sand
or other particles restrict visibility and depth perception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to addressing the causal factors of these accidents,
this rule also addresses National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
safety recommendations and recommendations made by the Part 125/135
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC).

B. Related Actions

    The FAA has taken actions to address the problem of helicopter
accidents, such as developing standards and issuing guidance, which
were discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (published
October 12, 2010). In addition to the actions noted there, the FAA has
revised its guidance materials to align with the provisions of this new
rule.
ARC Recommendations
    On April 8, 2003, the FAA formed the Part 125/135 ARC. This group
was tasked to perform a comprehensive review of parts 125 and 135 and
provide recommendations on rule changes. The ARC had close to 200
participants, representing a broad range of interests, and included
members of the operator community, unions, trade associations,
government, and manufacturers. The ARC worked for 2 years--from 2003 to
2005--and had eight working groups studying a wide range of subjects.
They made the recommendations for helicopter air ambulance operations
and other commercial helicopter operations that form the basis of
several of the provisions in this final rule. ARC proposals addressed
in this rulemaking include equipping helicopters with radio altimeters,
increasing weather minimums for helicopter air ambulance operations,
requiring additional safety equipment for overwater operations,
requiring pilot testing on recovery from IIMC, and revising alternate
airport weather requirements for instrument flight rules.

C. NTSB Recommendations for Helicopter Operations

    Many of the requirements in this rule were developed, in part, in
response to safety recommendations from the NTSB. The following is a
list of those recommendations, what they required, and how they relate
to the rules being codified today.
Recommendations on Helicopter Air Ambulance Operations
    A-06-12--Recommends that the FAA require all emergency medical
services (EMS) operators to comply with 14 CFR part 135 operations
specifications during the conduct of flights with medical personnel on
board. The FAA has addressed this recommendation in Sec.  135.1, which
requires helicopter air ambulance operations to be conducted under part
135 rules.
    A-06-13--Recommends that the FAA require all EMS operators to
develop and implement flight-risk evaluation programs that include
training for all employees involved in the operation, procedures that
support the systematic evaluation of flight risks, and consultation
with others in emergency medical service flight operations if the risks
reach a predefined level. The FAA has partially addressed this
recommendation in Sec.  135.617, which requires a preflight risk
analysis prior to helicopter air ambulance operations.
    A-06-14--Recommends that the FAA require EMS operators to use
formalized dispatch and flight-monitoring procedures that include up-
to-date weather information and assistance in flight risk assessment
decisions. The FAA has partially addressed this recommendation in Sec.
135.619, which requires OCCs for certificate holders with 10 or more
helicopter air ambulances.
    A-06-15--Recommends that the FAA require EMS operators to install
terrain awareness and warning systems on their aircraft and to provide
adequate training to ensure that flightcrews are capable of using those
systems to safely conduct EMS operations. The FAA addressed this
recommendation in Sec.  135.605, which requires equipping helicopter
air ambulances with HTAWS.
    A-09-87--Recommends that the FAA develop criteria for scenario-
based helicopter EMS pilot training that includes IIMC and hazards
unique to helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS), and determine
how frequently this training is required to ensure proficiency. The FAA
has addressed this recommendation by revising Sec.  135.293, which
would require that pilots be tested on recognizing and avoiding flat-
light, whiteout, and brownout conditions, and that they demonstrate
recovery from IIMC.
    A-09-89--Recommends that the FAA require helicopter air ambulance
operators to implement a safety

management system program that includes sound risk management
practices. The FAA partially addressed this recommendation by requiring
elements of a safety management system program for helicopter air
ambulance operators. Section 135.607 requires equipping helicopter air
ambulances with flight data monitoring systems, which can be used to
identify risk. Sec.  135.617 requires a preflight risk analysis for
helicopter air ambulance operations, and Sec.  135.619 requires OCCs
for certificate holders with 10 or more helicopter air ambulances.
    A-09-90--Recommends that the FAA require helicopter air ambulance
operators to install flight data recording devices and 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. The FAA has partially
addressed this recommendation in Sec.  135.607, which requires
equipping helicopter air ambulances with flight data monitoring
devices.
Recommendations for Commercial Helicopter Operations
    A-02-33--Recommends 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 competency during initial
and recurrent 14 CFR 135.293 evaluation check rides. The FAA has
addressed this recommendation by revising Sec.  135.293, which requires
testing pilots for recognition and avoidance of flat-light, whiteout,
and brownout conditions, and a demonstration of recovery from IIMC.
Also Sec.  135.603, which requires an instrument rating for helicopter
air ambulance pilots, addresses this recommendation.
    A-02-34--Recommends that the FAA require 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 those conditions in their approved training programs.
The FAA has partially addressed this recommendation in Sec.  135.293,
which requires pilot testing on recognizing and avoiding flat-light,
whiteout, and brownout conditions, and a demonstration of recovery from
IIMC.
    A-02-35--Recommends that the FAA require installation of radio
altimeters in all helicopters conducting commercial, passenger-carrying
operations in areas where flat-light or whiteout conditions routinely
occur. The FAA has addressed this recommendation in Sec.  135.160,
which requires installation of a radio altimeter in every helicopter
operated under part 135.
    A-06-17--Recommends that the FAA require all rotorcraft operating
under 14 CFR parts 91 and 135 with a transport-category certification
to be equipped with a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data
recorder. The FAA has partially addressed this recommendation in Sec.
135.607, which requires equipping helicopter air ambulances with a
flight data monitoring system.
    A-07-87--Recommends that the FAA require all existing and new
turbine-powered helicopters operating in the Gulf of Mexico and
certificated with five or more seats to be equipped with externally-
mounted life rafts large enough to accommodate all occupants. As
discussed below this recommendation is not addressed by this final
rule.
    A-07-88--Recommends that the FAA require all off-shore helicopter
operators in the Gulf of Mexico to provide their flightcrews with
personal flotation devices equipped with a waterproof global-
positioning-system-enabled 406 megahertz (MHz) personal locater beacon,
as well as one other signaling device, such as a signaling mirror or
strobe light. The FAA partially addresses this recommendation in Sec.
135.168, which requires that helicopters used in operations beyond
autorotational distance from the shoreline be equipped with a 406 MHz
locator beacon with a 121.5 MHz homing capability and that passengers
wear life preservers when over water.
    A-99-61--Recommends that the FAA amend record-keeping requirements
in Sec.  135.63(c) to apply to single-engine as well as multiengine
aircraft. As discussed below this recommendation is not addressed by
this final rule.

D. Congressional Action

    On February 14, 2012, President Obama signed into law the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 306 of
the Act requires that part 135 certificate holders providing air
ambulance services to comply with part 135 regulations pertaining to
weather minimums and flight and duty time when medical personnel are
onboard the aircraft. Section 306 also directs the FAA to conduct
rulemaking on helicopter air ambulance operations which will address:
(1) Flight request and dispatch procedures; (2) pilot training
standards for preventing controlled flight into terrain and recovery
from IIMC; and (3) safety-enhancing technology and equipment including,
HTAWS, radio altimeters, and, to the extent feasible, devices that
perform the function of flight data recorders and cockpit voice
recorders. Additionally, the Act requires the rulemaking to address:
(1) Flight risk evaluation programs; and (2) operational control
centers for helicopter air ambulance services with 10 or more
helicopters.
    The FAA is also directed to conduct a subsequent rulemaking
addressing pilot training standards, and the use of safety equipment
that should be worn or used by flight crewmembers and medical personnel
on helicopter air ambulance flights.
    Section 318 of the Act requires the FAA to study the ``feasibility
of requiring pilots of helicopters providing air ambulance services
under part 135 . . . to use NVGs during nighttime operations.''

E. Summary of the NPRM

    An NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2010
(75 FR 62640). That notice proposed--
     Revised weather minimums for all helicopter operations
under part 91.
     New load manifest requirements for all aircraft operations
under part 135.
     New operations, training, and equipment requirements for
all helicopter operations under part 135.
     New operations, training, equipment, and flightcrew
requirements for helicopter air ambulance operations under part 135.
    The comment period for that NPRM closed on January 10, 2011.

F. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received 179 comments about the proposal for this
rulemaking. Among those commenting were 32 operators, 11 manufacturers,
and 13 associations. Almost all of the commenters expressed support for
the intent of the proposal but many suggested changes to individual
requirements. Almost all of the provisions of the rule received some
comment.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    This final rule affects three categories of operators--part 91
helicopter operators, part 135 helicopter operators, and helicopter air
ambulance operators in part 135. Although addressed in the NPRM, the
final rule does not contain a load manifest requirement for all
aircraft operations under part 135. Following is a discussion of the
current standards, each new rule as it was proposed, the public
comments that

were received about that rule, and the final rule as it is adopted
today.

A. Weather Minimums for Helicopters Flying Under Visual Flight Rules in
Class G Airspace (Sec.  91.155)

    Currently, helicopters operating in Class G airspace, under VFR and
less than 1,200 feet above the surface, are required by Sec.
91.155(b)(1) to remain clear of clouds and to operate at a speed that
gives the pilot adequate opportunity to see any air traffic or
obstruction in time to avoid a collision. The FAA proposed to revise
Sec.  91.155 to establish a minimum \1/2\ statute mile visibility by
day and one statute mile visibility at night. The FAA received comments
expressing support for the proposal from the Air Medical Operators
Association (AMOA), PHI Air Medical (PHI), NTSB, the National EMS
Pilots Association (NEMSPA), members of the Association of Critical
Care Transport (ACCT), LifeFlight of Maine, and REACH Air Medical
Services, LLC (REACH). Other commenters expressed opposition based on
the FAA's accident analysis and concern over operational limitations
that are discussed below.
Accident Analysis
    The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) commented that the FAA
failed to provide documentation to support a change to Sec.  91.155 for
all general aviation and commercial helicopter operators. Kestrel Air
commented that the FAA did not correlate the air ambulance accident
rate with whether the helicopter was operating under part 91 or part
135. It noted that in the NPRM, the FAA cited emotional pressure on
pilots to fly if they believed their flight could save lives, and said
that this was considered a significant factor in the air ambulance
industry's higher accident rate. Kestrel said that this factor is
lacking in other part 91 operations, so there is no basis to presume
the proposed change would have any positive impact on these other
operators. The FAA notes that many operations under part 91, such as
firefighting, police work, crop spraying, pipeline patrol, and power
line repair can put pressure on a pilot and may be a contributing
factor in their industry's accident rate.
    Air Shasta Rotor and Wing, LLC (Air Shasta) commented that in a
review of the last 5 years of NTSB non-EMS part 91 helicopter accident
data, it was ``unable to find a particular accident that could have
been avoided if the pilot did not have the proposed requirement'' of
\1/2\ mile visibility and clear of clouds. Likewise, Westlog, Inc.
(Westlog) claimed that it could not find any accidents in the last 5
years of NTSB data that could have been avoided under this change.
    The FAA acknowledges that the NPRM did not contain accident data
relating to this proposed change. However, in response to these
comments, the FAA conducted a review of accidents to determine whether
NTSB accident data supports the proposal. A review of the accident
history for the period from 1991 to 2010, the same time period used for
the other provisions of this rule, showed that there were 49 helicopter
accidents resulting in 63 deaths that may have been prevented had this
rule been in place. The FAA determined that these accidents, which
occurred when visibility was less than \1/2\ mile during the day or 1
mile at night, and for which controlled flight into terrain, fog, rain,
or other adverse weather were contributing factors, may have been
prevented had the rule been in effect. Accordingly, the FAA has
determined that the accident history supports this change.
Operational Limitations
    Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed change would
prevent operations that are currently being conducted safely. EAA
stated that Sec.  91.155 has been in effect since the early 1970s and
has been safely used since that time. It noted that many helicopter
operations such as firefighting, wildlife surveys, logging operations,
off-shore fish sighting surveys, herding, crop spraying, and power
line/high tension wire maintenance/surveys occur from remote field
bases, with the majority of operations occurring close to those bases.
Further, EAA stated that pilots, based on their experience, are the
best judge of what speed and visibility are acceptable for safe
operation in those circumstances and that ``to impose a visibility
limit shows the FAA does not truly understand the entire scope of what
commercial and private helicopter missions are and their combined
effect on the national economy.''
    Commenters from EGLI Air Haul also believe that part 91 should
remain unchanged so that the pilot can decide whether visibility is
adequate. In support of leaving the regulation unchanged, they cited an
instance when an EGLI pilot made a decision to fly in conditions below
those proposed in the NPRM to aid survivors of an airplane crash who
were trapped on a mountainside. They contend that the proposed change
to Sec.  91.155 would have prevented this pilot from reaching the
survivors.
    The Los Angeles County Sheriff's department wrote that public
safety agencies must be able to make ``go/no go'' decisions based on
the higher experience level of their pilots and knowledge of the local
flying areas. The commenter stated that weather restrictions would
limit its ability to perform numerous search and rescue missions. Air
Shasta also stated that a ``detrimental consequence of these proposed
limitations would be cancelling or delaying of search and rescue
missions'' it occasionally performs.
    Westlog stated that the current requirement is safe for helicopters
operating clear of clouds because they can stop and land at zero
airspeed and commented that this helicopter operation is safer than an
airplane operating clear of clouds at night with one mile of visibility
when within \1/2\ mile of the runway under Sec.  91.155(b)(2).
Additionally, Westlog noted that it operates in coastal Oregon and
Northern California and frequents uncontrolled airports served by
automated weather observation systems (AWOS). Because coastal advection
fog is common in this area, the commenter explained, an AWOS will often
report \1/4\ mile visibility when over half the airport is clear, with
15 miles visibility or more. Westlog claimed that, even with a reported
\1/4\ mile visibility, a helicopter can take off safely under visual
flight rules by simply departing into the non-foggy area. Air Shasta
similarly commented that it has performed numerous searches when
conditions at the departure airport were below what was proposed in the
NPRM, but where it could find a point at the airport that was clear
enough to depart safely.
    One commenter, Safety and Flight Evaluations, International stated
that the proposed rule would have an insufficient impact on safety
because the proposed weather minimums are equivalent to Sec.
135.205(b) and that the visibility requirements should be doubled to 1
statute mile during the day and 2 statute miles at night.
    The FAA has determined that the change proposed in the NPRM is
warranted. As discussed above, the FAA has identified numerous
accidents that may have been prevented had the changes been in place.
In response to Westlog's comments about foggy conditions and readings
by an AWOS, the FAA is aware that visibility at some parts of an
airport may be sufficiently clear to conduct operations even though the
AWOS is reporting minimum visibility. Section 91.155 establishes flight
visibility requirements for part 91 VFR operations. Therefore, if the
pilot

determines that flight visibility \3\ meets the requirements of Sec.
91.155 at the takeoff location, despite the weather reported by the
AWOS, the pilot may take off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 14 CFR 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA recognizes that this change will prohibit operations that
are currently conducted in very low visibility conditions in Class G
airspace, including civil and public aircraft operations. However, the
FAA has determined that the increased safety justifies any prohibitions
that would result. Under current regulations, an operator may apply for
a certificate of waiver from Sec.  91.155. The Administrator may issue
a certificate of waiver if a proposed operation can be safely
conducted. See 14 CFR 91.903-91.905. The FAA has determined that this
existing waiver authority will provide sufficient flexibility to
operators that can safely conduct operations when visibility is below
the requirements established in this rule.
    In response to the comment by Safety and Flight Evaluations,
International that the visibility requirements should be doubled,
implementing more restrictive visibility minimums than those proposed
would be outside of the scope of the proposed rule.
Final Rule
    Based on the comments received and an additional review of the
NPRM, the FAA is adopting the rule as proposed with two changes. First,
the agency has changed proposed Sec.  91.155(b)(1) to allow helicopters
to operate clear of clouds in an airport or heliport traffic pattern
within \1/2\ mile of the runway or helipad of intended landing if the
flight visibility is \1/2\ statute mile or more. The agency finds that
this revision will provide an additional measure of flexibility when
operating at night in an airport environment similar to that afforded
to airplanes under the current rule. Second, for consistency with the
existing regulation, the final rule incorporates the visibility
minimums into Sec.  91.155(a), instead of Sec.  91.155(b)(1) as
proposed in the NPRM.

B. Load Manifest Requirement for All Aircraft Operating Under Part 135
(Sec.  135.63)

    Currently, Sec.  135.63 requires operators of multiengine aircraft
to complete a load manifest in duplicate and carry one copy aboard the
aircraft. No specific action is required for the second copy, but
certificate holders must retain a copy of the completed load manifest
for at least 30 days. Single engine aircraft currently have no
requirement to prepare a load manifest.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to apply the rule to all airplanes
and helicopters, single engine and multiengine, operating under part
135, and to clarify the requirements for preparation and transmission
of the load manifest. The proposal required that the load manifest be
sent to the certificate holder's principal base of operations or to
another location approved by the Administrator, where it must be
received before takeoff. The proposal allowed for the load manifest to
be provided electronically. It required that if the load manifest is
not received by the certificate holder's principal base of operations
before takeoff, the pilot must prepare two copies and carry one copy on
the aircraft to its destination and arrange, at the takeoff location,
for the second copy to be sent to the certificate holder or retained
until the flight is complete at a location approved by the
Administrator.
    The FAA estimated this provision would impose costs of $82 million
(present value) over 10 years while the benefits were estimated at $20
million (present value) over 10 years. The FAA requested comments on
the cost of the load manifest provision.
    The NTSB supported this revision and commented that it responds to
NTSB Safety Recommendation A-99-61. The Association of Air Medical
Services (AAMS), NEMSPA, Helicopter Association International (HAI),
and Angel One Transport supported the intent to maintain accurate load
manifest records, but they, and many other commenters, expressed
concerns about the cost, justification, and operational impact of this
requirement. Commenters noted the high cost of this requirement and
questioned how this provision would prevent accidents.
    Based on the comments received and additional review of the NPRM,
the FAA is withdrawing the load manifest requirement proposed in the
NRPM because of the excessive cost of this provision. Therefore, the
current rule language in Sec.  135.63 remains unchanged.
    The FAA notes that other regulations currently in place require
pilots to comply with the operating limitations of the aircraft and to
be familiar with all information concerning a flight, which would
include the type of information included on a load manifest. See
Sec. Sec.  91.9(a) and 91.103. Additionally, the FAA will consider
issuing guidance material in order to clarify the requirements for
preparation and transmission of the load manifest.

C. Rules Applicable to All Part 135 Helicopter Operations

1. Radio Altimeters (Sec.  135.160)
    The FAA proposed a new requirement for all rotorcraft operated
under part 135 to be equipped with a radio altimeter. Commenters,
including AAMS and various ACCT members, supported this proposal. The
NTSB supported it as well and emphasized that, if adopted, this
proposal would respond to NTSB Safety Recommendation A-02-35.
    Other commenters, however, objected to this provision on grounds
that radio altimeters are not effective in all situations, that the
rule would not be cost beneficial, and that not all helicopters can
incorporate radio altimeters. These comments are discussed in detail
below.
Effectiveness
    PHI claimed radio altimeters have minimal impact on pilots flying
by visual reference in daytime and that the accident record shows that
radio altimeters have not prevented controlled-flight-into-terrain
accidents. NorthStar Trekking, an Alaskan operator, commented that
radio altimeters are unreliable, give erroneous information over snow-
covered surfaces, and realistically create nothing more than a
distraction in a day VFR environment. One commenter stated that TAWS is
a better investment because radio altimeters ``tell distance to where
the aircraft has already been not where it's going to impact.''
    Finally, FreeFlight Systems, an avionics manufacturer, commented
that the radio altimeter should have the ``performance guarantees of
[Technical Standard Order] TSO-C87 and be designated in accordance with
DO-178B and DO-254 with at least a Level C design assurance.'' It
further stated that some radio altimeters with ``only a PMA--lacking a
TSO'' are less accurate at low altitudes which could impact the ability
to gauge altitude in critical conditions.
    The FAA determined that radio altimeters are an important safety
device designed to inform the pilot of the aircraft's actual height
above the surface. Although it is true that a radio altimeter may have
minimal impact on daytime visual reference flight, this device gives
pilots an additional tool to maintain situational awareness in an
inadvertent encounter with IMC, where vision is suddenly limited due to
brownout or whiteout, or other situations where pilots lose their
reference to the horizon and the ground. Additionally, as stated in the
NPRM, a radio altimeter can aid a pilot's

awareness of height above the ground during hover, when landing in
unimproved landing zones, or where a more vertical approach is
required. All of these scenarios can occur during the day.
    In response to the comments that a radio altimeter may not prevent
a controlled-flight-into-terrain accident, as discussed in the NPRM,
NTSB safety recommendation A-02-35 noted that radio altimeters might
aid pilots in recognizing proximity to the ground in flat-light and
whiteout conditions. Additionally, the FAA cites 29 accidents in the
final regulatory evaluation that may have been prevented by a radio
altimeter. Of the 29 accidents, 19 were classified as controlled flight
into terrain by the NTSB. A radio altimeter could have provided the
pilot with a low altitude warning, enabling the pilot to take
corrective action.
    In response to NorthStar Trekking, the FAA acknowledges that, in
limited circumstances, such as when operating over dry snow or still
water, a radio altimeter may provide inaccurate altitude readings.
Improper installation of a radio altimeter may exacerbate this problem.
The FAA has determined that these infrequent inaccurate readings do not
outweigh the safety benefits that will be obtained by requiring
installation of radio altimeters in the commercial helicopter fleet.
    In response to the comment that this device only tells where the
aircraft has been, meaning that it cannot detect obstacles in the
flight path, a descending altitude read-out on the radio altimeter
could alert a pilot to rising terrain or decreasing altitude over level
terrain. Accordingly, although the radio altimeter does not reveal
obstacles in the flight path, it does provide valuable information to
maintain situational awareness. The FAA agrees with the commenter that
TAWS or HTAWS are valuable tools, but is not going to extend the
requirement to equip with one of these devices to the entire part 135
helicopter population at this time. Rather, as discussed later in this
document and in the NPRM, the FAA is requiring HTAWS for helicopter air
ambulance operations because they are often conducted at night and into
unimproved landing sites.
    Finally, the FAA is not requiring a radio altimeter that meets
Technical Standard Order TSO-C87. The FAA determined that an FAA-
approved radio altimeter is sufficient because the intended function is
demonstrated regardless of the type of FAA approval. A radio altimeter
may be approved in one of four ways: Under a Parts Manufacturer
Approval; under a TSO authorization; in conjunction with type
certification procedures for a product; or approved in any other manner
by the Administrator. See 14 CFR 21.303. The minimum performance of a
TSO or a parts-manufacturer-approved radio altimeter must be
demonstrated to meet the intended function.
Cost
    NorthStar Trekking commented that contrary to the FAA's assertion
that the cost of radio altimeters is negligible, an altimeter costs
roughly $6,000, with an additional $500 in maintenance annually--money
that could be better spent on training, early retirement of parts,
extra pilots, and appropriate avionics that ``truly have an effect on
our overall safety. . . .'' It further stated that the accident cited
in the NPRM would not have been prevented by a radio altimeter. It
noted that the accident may have been far worse had a radio altimeter
been installed on the helicopter because of snow and fog, and had the
pilot tried to maintain a higher altitude by use of a radio altimeter
he may have flown into IMC conditions.
    Westlog claimed that requiring a non-air ambulance operator to have
a radio altimeter installed is simply too onerous with very little
documented benefit. Westlog based this comment on its review of NTSB
accident data for the non-air ambulance part 135 helicopter industry.
It noted that the only non-air ambulance accident cited in the NPRM
occurred in Alaska and maintained that a radio altimeter requirement is
not justified for all geographic locations. In response to Westlog's
comment, the FAA notes that it identified 11 non-air ambulance
commercial helicopter accidents in the final Regulatory Evaluation that
might have been prevented if an operational radio altimeter had been
installed in the aircraft. These accidents were also cited in the
initial Regulatory Evaluation published in the docket with the NPRM.
    With respect to the comment on the cost of a radio altimeter, in
the initial regulatory evaluation, the FAA estimated the cost of a
radio altimeter to be $5,250 (including installation), plus revenue
losses for downtime during installation. For the final regulatory
evaluation, the FAA revised this cost estimate to a $9,000 cost for the
device, which was the highest estimate given by commenters, plus $500
annually for maintenance.
Need for Flexibility
    Westlog and Air Shasta expressed concern that their helicopters
cannot accommodate additional equipment. Both commenters said that if
they are forced to install a radio altimeter, they would have to remove
vital equipment, such as the artificial horizon, because there is no
room to fit anything more on the instrument panel. Several commenters,
including REACH, supported the rule, provided they were able to
continue operation without a radio altimeter within a limited period
and with acceptable alternative procedures as prescribed under minimum
equipment lists (MELs).
    The final rule states that an operator must have an ``FAA-approved
radio altimeter, or an FAA-approved device that incorporates a radio
alti- meter. . . .'' The FAA recognizes that limited numbers of older
helicopters used in part 135 operations (e.g. Bell-47, Robinson R-22)
may not have adequate room on the flight deck to install a radio
altimeter. In response to these comments, the FAA is including the
ability for a certificate holder to obtain a deviation from the rule
for circumstances when a radio altimeter cannot physically be located
on the flight deck. However, we also note that an HTAWS or other device
such as a multi-function display that incorporates a radio altimeter
would be permitted under this rule. Deviation authority may not be
warranted for helicopters in which a radio altimeter can be
incorporated into the flight deck's existing configuration.
Additionally, the operator may not use information derived from a
global positioning system (GPS) as a substitute for a radio altimeter.
    Finally, the FAA notes that the rule language proposed in the NPRM
exempting operators from the radio altimeter requirement when
``authorized in the certificate holder's approved'' MEL is adopted in
the final rule. The particular requirements relating to operations with
inoperable radio altimeters would be developed by FAA's Flight
Standards Service in accordance with its existing master minimum
equipment list (MMEL) process.
Compliance Date
    The FAA asked for comments on the proposed 3-year compliance period
for the radio altimeter provision. The NTSB responded that the
compliance period for this requirement should be reduced to 1 year
because radio altimeters are readily available for helicopter
installation. FreeFlight Systems encouraged adoption as soon as
possible, but commented that a 3-year time frame ``seems reasonable
since affordable, light-weight equipment is already available.'' The
FAA also notes

comments discussed above regarding concerns about the time it takes to
obtain FAA approval for equipment installations.
    The FAA is implementing the 3-year compliance period proposed in
the NPRM. We have determined, based on the comments, that part 135
helicopter operators will be able to comply with the rule in that time
period. The FAA also does not anticipate undue delay in approving radio
altimeter installations because they are readily available on the
market and installation procedures are well established.
Requirement for Helicopter Air Ambulances To Be Equipped With Radio
Altimeters and HTAWS
    The FAA proposed that helicopters used in air ambulance operations
be equipped with both a radio altimeter and an HTAWS unit and asked for
comments on the safety benefits of installing both devices. The FAA is
requiring in the final rule that helicopter air ambulances be equipped
with both a radio altimeter and HTAWS. Aviation Solutions Group, LLC, a
member of ACCT, agreed with the proposal to require both technologies
to ``provide optimal situational awareness.'' This comment was echoed
by other ACCT members. LifeFlight of Maine commented that use of a
radio altimeter and HTAWS provides multiple sources of low-altitude
warnings to pilots.
    We reiterate the statements in the NPRM that an HTAWS that
incorporates or works in conjunction with a radio altimeter function
would meet the requirements of Sec.  135.160 because those units
measure altitude by actively sending radio signals to the surface. They
do not rely on a preprogrammed database to derive altitude information.
Therefore an HTAWS without a radio altimeter function would not meet
the requirements of Sec.  135.160.
    The rule is adopted as proposed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 306(c)(3) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) requires the FAA to conduct a rulemaking that
addresses use of radio altimeters in helicopter air ambulance
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Safety Equipment for Overwater Operations (Sec. Sec.  1.1, 135.117,
135.167, and 135.168)
    Currently, aircraft operating in extended overwater operations must
comply with the equipment requirements in Sec.  135.167. Current Sec.
1.1 defines extended overwater operations for helicopters as an
operation at a horizontal distance of more than 50 nautical miles (NM)
from the nearest shoreline and 50 NM from an off-shore heliport
structure. Additionally, operators must comply with overwater equipment
requirements in Sec.  91.205(b)(12) and performance requirements for
aircraft in Sec.  135.183 when conducting overwater operations.
    In the NPRM, the requirements for helicopter overwater operations
were contained in a new section, Sec.  135.168. Additionally, the NPRM
proposed removing the reference to off-shore heliports from Sec.  1.1
to define extended overwater operations as operations more than 50 NM
from the nearest shoreline. The FAA proposed to amend Sec.  135.167 to
exclude rotorcraft. The FAA received comments on the framework of the
proposed rule and the equipment requirements. Based on these comments
and further review of the NPRM, the FAA has made significant revisions
to this rule.
    Primarily, the FAA has removed the requirement for helicopters to
equip with life rafts when beyond autorotational distance from the
shoreline. The FAA is removing the life raft requirement proposed in
the NPRM because the cost of equipping with life rafts would not be
justified by an increase in the survivability of accidents. The FAA
reviewed accidents to ascertain the cost and benefit of each piece of
equipment proposed in the NPRM and determined that benefits from the
accidents cited in the NPRM do not justify the costs of imposing the
life raft requirement. This is for two reasons. First, there are
relatively few accidents beyond autorotational distance from the
shoreline. Second, among the accidents identified, few qualify as
survivable and, of the survivable accidents, the requirement to wear
life preservers would generate the greatest likelihood of surviving in
the water. Accordingly, the proposed life raft requirement is not being
implemented in the final rule.
    The FAA is also not implementing the proposed revision to the
definition of ``extended over-water operation'' in Sec.  1.1. That
definition would have been revised so that the equipment requirements
for extended over-water operations would take effect at the same
distance from shore for helicopters and airplanes. Currently,
helicopters are allowed more flexibility. However, we are withdrawing
this revision because it was tied to the life raft proposal.
    Additionally, the final rule does not adopt the changes proposed to
Sec.  135.167 which would have made that section applicable only to
airplanes. The removal of the proposed life raft requirement makes it
necessary to leave Sec.  135.167 as it is so that the existing equipage
rules, which include a life raft requirement, apply to helicopters
engaged in extended overwater operations.
    Nevertheless, as discussed below, the FAA is retaining the
requirements that life preservers be worn when the aircraft is operated
beyond autorotational distance from the shoreline and for helicopters
to be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT. The FAA believes it is important to
provide passengers with this base level of equipment to increase the
odds of surviving a crash into the water. As discussed above, when
conducting the accident analysis, the FAA reviewed each piece of
equipment proposed in this provision and found that, of the proposed
equipment, life preservers would generate the most benefits.
    The FAA is not adopting the proposed pyrotechnic signaling device
requirement because Sec.  91.205(b)(12) currently requires aircraft
operated overwater to be equipped with ``at least one pyrotechnic
signaling device.''
406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters
    This final rule requires that each helicopter have an approved
emergency locator transmitter (ELT)--ELT 406/121.5MHz. The NPRM
proposed a TSO-C126a approved 406 MHz ELT that only needed to be
carried on the rafts. The final rule language has been changed to
require that single and multiengine helicopters, not the raft, be
equipped with an ELT. This will ensure that all helicopters that
conduct operations beyond autorotational distance from the shoreline
will have the added safety benefit of a rescue locating and signaling
device. This final rule requires an ELT that transmits on the 406 MHz
frequency but also includes a low-power 121.5 MHz homing device. The
121.5 MHz frequency remains allocated to aviation emergencies and
continues to be monitored by air traffic control, flight service
stations, other emergency organizations, and aircraft. We also note
that since publication of the NPRM the FAA published TSO-C126b, dated
November 26, 2012, which does not allow using hook and loop fasteners
to secure the ELT in the aircraft.
    Operators required to comply with this rule can find ELT minimum
performance standards in FAA TSO-C126b ``406 MHz Emergency Locator
Transmitter,'' dated November 26, 2012. The FAA notes that the prior
versions of the TSO, TSO-C126a dated December 17, 2008, and TSO-C126
December 23, 1992, provide minimum performance specifications for 406
and 121.5 MHz ELTs that are similar to those found in TSO-C126b. FAA
TSO-C126 refers to RTCA DO-204 ``Minimum Operational

Performance Standards for 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters,''
dated December 23, 1992, and FAA TSO-C126b and TSO-C126a refer to RTCA
DO-204a ``Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 406 MHz
Emergency Locator Transmitters,'' dated December 6, 2007. Accordingly,
the FAA has changed the rule language to allow TSO-C126, TSO-C126a, and
TSO-C126b approved ELTs.
    RTCA DO-204 and DO-204a include minimum performance standards for
both 406 and 121.5 MHz ELTs. When beneficial to the operator, the FAA
will consider approving installations of a stand-alone 406 MHz ELT to
augment an existing 121.5 MHz ELT installation.
Life Preservers
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to include a requirement in Sec.
135.168 that occupants in overwater operations wear life preservers
equipped with a survivor locator light from takeoff until the flight is
no longer over water.
    PHI asked the FAA to strike the words ``from takeoff until the
flight is no longer over water'' from the overwater life preserver
requirement of Sec.  135.168 and replace them with ``during the
overwater portion of the flight.'' AMOA asserted that the rule should
not require passengers to wear life preservers, but rather the life
preservers should ``be easily accessible'' during overwater operations.
Med-Trans proposed a change that would exempt the patients on board
medical helicopters from life preserver and briefing requirements.
    Many commenters recommended that the FAA exclude patients from life
preserver requirements because wearing a life preserver could interfere
with the patient's medical care. These comments mirrored a part 125/135
ARC recommendation. The FAA did not intend to require transported
patients to wear life preservers if doing so would impede the ability
of medical personnel to treat that patient or if it would be
inadvisable for medical reasons, such as a need to keep the patient
still. Accordingly the FAA has revised Sec.  135.168(b)(1) to reflect
this intent.
    The FAA agrees with commenters that passengers should be able to
don life preservers only for the overwater portion of the flight. After
reviewing the proposal, the FAA recognizes that a flight may spend
significant time over land before it travels over water. The FAA has
amended the final rule to require that occupants wear life preservers
while the helicopter is beyond autorotational distance from the
shoreline.
Applicability
    As proposed in the NPRM and adopted in this final rule, Sec.
135.168 contains an operational solution that addresses commenters'
concerns about flights that only cross narrow bodies of inland water or
bays. A helicopter does not need to be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT and
life preservers if it crosses the water at an altitude within
autorotational glide distance of the shore. Autorotational distance
refers to the forward distance a helicopter can glide without engine
power. During autorotation the rotors continue turning because of the
air moving through the rotor as the helicopter loses altitude. Thus, an
operator can avoid the need for the additional safety equipment by
flying close to the shoreline or at a higher altitude. For example, for
a helicopter that has a glide ratio of 3 feet forward to 1 foot of
descent, a pilot flying at an altitude of 1,000 feet would be able to
operate at least \1/2\ mile from a shoreline without needing overwater
equipment. This provides flexibility for operators that fly over narrow
bodies of water while still providing the additional level of safety
for overwater and extended overwater operations. This standard is
consistent with current requirements under Sec.  135.183.
Final Rule
    Based on the comments received and additional review of the NPRM,
the FAA has adopted Sec.  135.168 with revisions. The most significant
changes are to the requirements for helicopter overwater operations in
Sec.  135.168. The FAA has not adopted the proposed requirements for
life-rafts and pyrotechnic signaling devices or the proposed changes to
the definition of extended overwater operations in Sec.  1.1. The
proposed amendment to Sec.  135.167 is not adopted.
    The final rule requires helicopters to be equipped with a 406 MHz
ELT and occupants to wear life preservers on helicopter flights
operated beyond autorotational distance from shoreline.
    The FAA also notes that passenger briefing requirements proposed in
the NPRM as Sec.  135.168(d) have been moved to Sec.  135.117, Briefing
of passengers before flight. No substantive changes were made to the
briefing requirements.
    These changes will take effect 3 years after this rule's
publication.
3. Pilot Testing for Recovery From IIMC, Whiteout, Brownout, and Flat-
Light Conditions (Sec.  135.293)
    The FAA proposed adding new requirements to Sec.  135.293 to
require helicopter pilots to demonstrate recovery from an IIMC on an
annual basis and to understand procedures for aircraft handling in
flat-light, whiteout, and brownout conditions. Twelve commenters,
including AAMS, Air Methods Corporation (Air Methods), AMOA, REACH, and
the NTSB supported the proposed change. Twenty-one commenters,
including PHI, did not agree with the proposal as written.
    Some commenters stated that the testing requirements should be
tailored to the certificate holder's operating environment. NorthStar
Trekking, an Alaskan operator, noted that it trains its pilots for
flat-light and whiteout conditions, but not for brownout conditions.
Jack Harter Helicopters stated that because it does not operate in
areas where whiteout or brownout are likely, it should not be required
to include those conditions in its training program. PHI stated that a
majority of its operations rarely encounter flat-light or whiteout
conditions, and mandating training for those conditions for all
operators would be an onerous requirement.
    PHI also stated that this regulation would be redundant with Sec.
135.329(e)(1), which requires training specific to a certificate
holder's type of operation. The NTSB commented that the FAA should
require operators to incorporate safe practices for operations in flat-
light and whiteout conditions in their training programs.
    LifeFlight of Maine and other ACCT members commented that the IIMC
recovery training should be demonstrated semi-annually. Several
individual commenters recommended quarterly training for pilots to
maintain proficiency.
    AAMS, AMOA, and Air EVAC EMS commented that pilots should be able
to use simulators and flight training devices to complete this
training. The NTSB also supported increased use of simulators for
helicopter pilot training.
    The FAA finds that helicopter pilots would benefit from annual
testing on all three conditions--whiteout, flat light, and brownout.
Although some conditions may be more prevalent in certain areas, such
as whiteout conditions in Alaska or brownout conditions in desert
environments, these conditions may occur year-round in many places.
This testing will help ensure that pilots have a base-level knowledge
should they encounter these conditions. To clarify, the rule requires
that pilots, on the annual written or oral test required by Sec.
135.293(a), demonstrate knowledge of procedures for aircraft handling
in flat-light, whiteout, and brownout conditions, and

methods for recognizing and avoiding these conditions. They would be
required to demonstrate a realistic course of action to escape IIMC
during the Sec.  135.293(b) competency check. As discussed in the NPRM,
the FAA intends for this demonstration to be appropriate to the
aircraft, equipment, and facilities available to the pilot during the
competency check. The FAA finds that an annual check is sufficient
because it can be incorporated into a certificate holder's existing
competency check schedule.
    This new requirement does not duplicate the crewmember training
requirements of Sec.  135.329(e)(1). That section requires, in part,
crewmember training, instruction, and practice to ensure that each
crewmember remains adequately trained and proficient for each type of
operation in which that crewmember serves. While operators may include
training on flat-light, whiteout, brownout, and IIMC recovery in
training programs, this rule's amendments ensure that these topics will
be tested during a pilot's annual competency check. The FAA anticipates
that such training will be incorporated into training programs so that
pilots will be adequately prepared for their annual competency checks.
    We note that the IMC recovery portion of the competency check could
be performed in a simulator or flight training device, provided that it
is consistent with that device's specific approval.
Final Rule
    This rule is adopted as proposed and will take effect 60 days after
publication of the final rule.\5\ Section 135.293 requires individuals
to complete testing in the 12 calendar months prior to serving as a
pilot in part 135 operation. The FAA does not intend for pilots to be
retested before the new testing requirements take effect. Rather,
pilots must comply with the new requirement during their next Sec.
135.293 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 306(c)(2) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) requires the FAA to conduct a rulemaking that
addresses pilot training standards in preventing controlled flight
into terrain and recovery from IIMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. IFR Alternate Airport Weather Minimums (Sec.  135.221)
    Current rules, as provided for in Sec.  135.221, require that to
designate an alternate airport for an IFR operation, weather reports or
forecasts for that airport must be at or above the alternate airport
landing minimums for that airport at the estimated time of arrival. In
the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a more stringent alternate
airport weather requirement for rotorcraft, based on minimums
established in Operations Specification (OpSpec) H105. Several
commenters, including the NTSB, ACCT members, PHI, and AAMS supported
the proposed change.
    Kestrel Air commented that the FAA proposed this requirement
without establishing a connection between existing standards and
accidents involving part 135 helicopter operators and that there is no
accident history to support this proposal.
    Safety and Flight Evaluations, International agreed that increased
weather minimums would increase the likelihood of being able to land at
the alternate if weather deteriorates. However, it also stated that
because it is often more difficult for a helicopter to fly out of a
weather system to an alternate airport, as noted in the NPRM, that
``there is little likelihood that an alternate airfield exists that
would have significantly different weather conditions than at the
primary airfield.'' Accordingly, Safety and Flight Evaluations,
International stated that the rule would discourage pilots from flying
IFR.
    Kestrel Air is correct that the FAA did not cite any accidents to
support this proposal. However, as noted in the NPRM, this proposal is
based on OpSpec H105, which is issued to all part 135 helicopter
operators that conduct IFR operations. Accordingly, this rule change
will not require operational changes for these certificate holders, so
no additional costs will be incurred. OpSpec H105 has established these
minimums and the FAA does not anticipate a change in IFR usage.
    This rule is adopted as proposed.

D. Rules Applicable to Helicopter Air Ambulance Operations

    This final rule establishes several new requirements for
certificate holders conducting helicopter air ambulance operations. It
changes the applicability section of part 135 (Sec.  135.1) to require
some operations that have been conducted under part 91 to be conducted
under part 135. Additionally, this rule establishes new equipment,
operations, and training rules for certificate holders conducting air
ambulance operations which are codified in new subpart L, Sec. Sec.
135.601-135.621.
1. Applicability of Part 135 Rules to Helicopter Air Ambulance
Operations (Sec. Sec.  135.1, 135.267, 135.271, 135.601)
    The FAA proposed requiring that all helicopter air ambulance
operations with medical personnel on board be conducted under part 135
operating rules. Flights to pick up a patient, the patient transport
leg, and the flight returning to base after the patient is dropped off,
or other flights with a patient or medical personnel on board would be
conducted under part 135. The FAA received many comments from
organizations and individuals supporting and opposing this proposal.
Comments addressed the FAA's accident analysis which formed the basis
of the regulatory evaluation; whether part 135 is the appropriate part
of the regulations for this change and whether repositioning flights
should continue to be operated under part 91; potential limitations on
operations; flight and duty questions; and how the FAA defined flights
to be conducted under part 135. These comments are addressed in detail
below.
Definition of Medical Personnel
    The NPRM defined ``medical personnel'' as ``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.'' With this rule, any flights for medical transportation that
carry a patient or medical personnel must now be conducted under part
135 rules.
    NEMSPA suggested a change in the definition of medical personnel to
``medical personnel means persons approved by State or Federal EMS
regulations who are carried aboard a helicopter during helicopter air
ambulance operations in order to provide onboard medical care.'' AMOA
requested a change in the proposed definition of medical personnel to
``persons who are carried aboard a helicopter during helicopter air
ambulance operations in order to provide onboard medical care'' because
the rule would limit the types of medical professionals often
transported and could confuse the rule.
    The FAA clarifies that this definition is intended to be applied
broadly to individuals who might be carried aboard to provide care.
Requiring medical personnel to be approved under State or Federal EMS
regulations may result in preventing people currently performing these
functions from performing them any longer, because they may be licensed
medical professionals but not certified under state or federal EMS
regulation. For example, a nurse might be certified to practice by the
State board of nursing, but not under a State's EMS regulations.
Limiting the definition to this certification could also have the

unintentional result of allowing operators to use medical caregivers
who are not specifically certified under State or Federal EMS
regulations. As a result, these individuals would not be included in
the definition and thus the operator could avoid the part 135
requirements.
    Additionally, we note that the definition of medical personnel
proposed in the NPRM referenced ``persons with medical training,
including but not limited to a flight physician, a flight nurse, or a
flight paramedic. . . .'' (See 75 FR 62621) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the definition does not apply to those persons only. Any
person with medical training who is ``carried aboard a helicopter
during helicopter air ambulance operations in order to provide medical
care'' would fall into the definition of medical personnel. The FAA
notes that it made a non-substantive change to the definition of
``medical personnel'' to clarify that the definition could apply to a
single person as well as to a group.
Accident Analysis
    AMOA and PHI contended that the FAA's accident analysis used to
justify placing more operations under part 135 was flawed because it
categorized flights as occurring under part 91 when, in fact, many were
conducted under part 135 rules. Both organizations cited a 1992
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the NTSB and the FAA that
established how air ambulance accidents would be categorized. Pursuant
to the MOU, the NTSB categorized accidents involving air medical
flights without a patient on board as part 91 accidents. These
commenters maintained that many of the accidents categorized as
occurring under part 91 actually happened when the helicopter was
operating under part 135 rules even though no patient was on board. HAI
commented that its members that conduct air medical operations
``currently operate to the requirements of OpSpec A021, which are
higher than current part 135 weather minimums, on any leg of a patient
transport flight whenever medical personnel are on board. . . .''
    The NTSB noted in its comment that, as detailed in its Special
Investigation Report on Emergency Medical Services Operations, 32 of
the 41 helicopter air ambulance accidents investigated by the NTSB
occurred while the aircraft was operating under the flight rules
specified in part 91.
    The FAA acknowledges that the commenters correctly described the
way accidents are categorized under the MOU. In light of the
information received from the commenters, the FAA reviewed the
accidents cited in the NPRM to determine whether the accidents
categorized as part 91 accidents were properly used to justify changes
to the rule. The NPRM categorized 33 accidents (out of the 135
helicopter air ambulance accidents cited) as occurring during part 91
operations which were given as support for including those operations
in part 135.
    The FAA determined that 17 of those 33 accidents occurred while the
helicopters were flying in weather minimums below those proposed and
that will be required under Sec.  135.609, accounting for 42 deaths.
Although some operations were conducted under part 135, these flights
were operated below the weather minimums for helicopter air ambulance
operations proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, the accidents may have been
prevented had these helicopters been operating under the stricter rules
adopted here and are properly included in justifying this rule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The remaining sixteen accidents originally identified as
part 91 operations were flying above the weather minimums
established in this rule and are therefore no longer being used to
support Sec.  135.609. However, 10 of these accidents were cited in
the NPRM in support of other proposed rule provisions. The FAA finds
that these accidents are still applicable to those provisions. Six
accidents were removed from the final rule's accident analysis. See
the Final Regulatory Evaluation for a full explanation of the
accident analysis, and methodology used to review the accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relationship Between Parts 91 and 135
    AMOA, Air Evac EMS Inc. (Air Evac EMS), AAMS, NEMSPA, and PHI were
among commenters that said that applying part 135 regulations to
operations traditionally considered to be under part 91 is inconsistent
with the current regulatory framework and could introduce confusion.
Instead, these commenters said changes to enhance safety requirements
for these operations should be made by amending part 91, not part 135.
This would ensure the continuity and applicability of the current
rules.
    The NTSB supported the proposal and stated that it would likely
meet the intent of Safety Recommendation A-06-12. However, it also
stated that the list of flights conducted under part 135 must be as
complete as possible and should include maintenance flights, training
flights, helicopter positioning flights performed without medical
crewmembers on board, and other operations that would not be required
to be conducted under part 135 under this rule.
    The commenters are correct that, as discussed in the NPRM,
currently non-patient-carrying legs of helicopter air ambulance
operations may be conducted under part 91. The FAA, through this rule,
is requiring legs with medical personnel onboard to be conducted under
part 135. The primary reason for this change is to protect medical
personnel by ensuring that those flights are conducted under the more
stringent operating rules of part 135. As noted by the NTSB, medical
personnel ``cannot be expected to meaningfully participate in the
decision-making process to enhance flight safety or to significantly
contribute to operational control of the flight.'' Accordingly, the FAA
determined that medical personnel deserve the same safety protections
that part 135 provides to patients on helicopter air ambulance flights.
    Additionally, the FAA is not changing the rule language to provide
a more extensive list of flights that must be conducted under part 135.
As discussed above, the rule is clear that if medical personnel or a
patient are on board the aircraft and the flight is conducted for
medical transportation, then it must be conducted under part 135. The
non-exclusive list is intended to emphasize that the traditional three-
legged helicopter air ambulance flight (base to pick-up site, pick-up
site to drop-off site, drop-off site to base) must now be conducted
under part 135.
    Further, the FAA does not anticipate that the placement of these
rules in part 135 rather than in part 91 will cause confusion for
certificate holders. It is clear that these rules only apply to part
119 certificate holders authorized to conduct helicopter air ambulance
operations under part 135. Part 135 is a logical place for the
regulations affecting this population.
    The FAA received several comments about this rule's impact on
helicopter air ambulance operations. First, AMOA, Air Evac EMS, AAMS,
NEMSPA, and PHI commented on the need for flexibility from the part 135
requirements during the repositioning leg for training purposes. They
have traditionally used this leg for training newly hired second pilots
on instrument approach procedures and stated that they cannot do the
same kind of training when operating under part 135 rules as they can
when operating under part 91 rules because the pilot in training would
not be able to manipulate the controls. Commenters were concerned this
proposal could significantly inhibit IFR operations by helicopter air
ambulance operators. Second, HAI commented that a

requirement to conduct helicopter air ambulance operations under part
135 would prevent operators from using GPS approaches certified for
part 91 operations.
    The FAA has determined that applying part 135 rules will have only
a limited effect on training. Operators may continue training pilots on
instrument approaches during flights with no passengers, medical
personnel, or patients on board. The FAA has determined that the safety
benefits of this rule outweigh the fact that certificate holders may
need to conduct additional training flights.
    The FAA finds HAI's concern about limitations on GPS approaches to
be unwarranted. All instrument approaches are designed and certified to
part 97 Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) requirements. Use of
these approaches is not restricted to flights conducted under certain
operating rules. They can be used by an operator conducting flights
under part 91, 121, or 135.
    The NTSB also stated that although part 91 may provide additional
``operational flexibilities due to decreased visual flight rules (VFR)
weather minimums and no flight crew rest requirements'' it believes
that these benefits ``are greatly overshadowed by the increased risk
that such operations have historically posed.''
    Additionally, the FAA acknowledges that certificate holders may not
be able to conduct certain operations because of the more stringent
part 135 requirements. For example, the weather minimums may be below
part 135 standards, but would have been acceptable for a part 91
operation. Similarly, additional part 135 flights may mean that a
flightcrew member reaches flight time limitations more quickly.
Nevertheless, the FAA has determined that these restrictions are
appropriate given the increased safety of operations that are expected
as a result of this regulation. However, the FAA is not extending this
regulation to flights conducted without medical personnel onboard. The
FAA has determined that such an extension would go beyond the stated
rationale of providing additional protections to the medical personnel
and passengers onboard the helicopter.
    Air Methods commented that operators should follow the weather
minimums specified in A021, which are more stringent than the baseline
part 135 weather minimums. The FAA agrees and, as discussed later, is
adopting those weather minimums into part 135 regulations applicable to
helicopter air ambulance operations.
Flight and Duty Time Limitations (Proposed Sec. Sec.  135.267 and
135.271)
    As discussed in the NPRM, one impact of requiring flights
traditionally conducted under part 91 to be conducted under part 135 is
that these flights will now count toward a pilot's flight time
limitations. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed adding language to
Sec. Sec.  135.267 and 135.271 to clarify that helicopter air ambulance
operations conducted under part 135 must be included in a pilot's
flight time.
    Members of ACCT support including pilot duty time limitations in
the change to require more helicopter air ambulance flights to be
conducted under part 135. The Advanced Life Support and Emergency
Response Team agreed with requiring flight time for a part 135
operation when medical personnel are on board to count toward a pilot's
daily flight time limitations and stated it already operates under this
policy.
    PHI, AMOA, and Air Evac EMS commented that the current flight time
and duty limitations in Sec.  135.267 should not be altered. PHI
believes the proposal is inconsistent with FAA regulatory structure and
discriminates against the helicopter air ambulance industry without
justification. AMOA does not agree with adoption of Sec.  135.267(g).
    PHI also commented that there currently are no part 135 regulations
that prevent a pilot from flying while fatigued. The commenter said
that the pertinent regulation resides in part 91, part 135 operators
must comply with part 91, and that current rest and duty requirements
do not guarantee that a pilot will not be fatigued, even if complying
with the regulations. Air Evac EMS commented that Sec. Sec.  91.13 and
135.69(a) afford sufficient protection and claimed that the best
measure against pilot fatigue is the pilot knowing when to decline a
flight request and appropriate oversight.
    AMOA and Air Methods claimed that no accidents as a result of crew
rest issues were cited to support this proposal and its change is a
profound shift in the agency's regulatory structure that would cause
pilots to rush to stay within the prescribed duty period. PHI and AMOA
recommended retaining the current requirements until the FAA has
reviewed all part 135 pilot rest requirements.
    PHI and numerous other commenters requested flexibility for pilot
rest requirements under circumstances beyond the control of the pilot
or operator.
    The FAA did not propose any substantive changes to Sec. Sec.
135.267 and 135.271 flight time and rest requirements but instead added
language to those sections to clarify ``flight time'' as a term that
includes any helicopter air ambulance operation as defined in Sec.
135.601. As established by this rule, all helicopter air ambulance
operations with medical personnel or patients on board must be
conducted under part 135. The provisions of Sec. Sec.  135.267 and
135.271 would therefore apply to the helicopter air ambulance
operations previously conducted under part 91.
    In the final rule, the FAA did not add the proposed references to
helicopter air ambulance operations in Sec. Sec.  135.267 and 135.271
because they are redundant with the amendments to Sec.  135.1. Any
operation that must be completed under part 135 must comply with the
applicable flight and duty time limitations of part 135, and this
action does not eliminate this requirement. As commenters noted,
Sec. Sec.  91.13 and 135.69 provide some safeguards, but the FAA has
determined that the flight time limitations and rest requirements of
part 135, subpart F, are the rules to follow to prevent pilot fatigue.
    The FAA also notes that it received several comments about whether
circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder would permit
exceeding the flight time limitations in Sec.  135.267. The FAA
believes that these comments mirror those submitted to the FAA in
response to a draft legal interpretation published for comment that
addresses this issue. See Docket No. FAA-2010-1259 (Dec. 23, 2010). The
FAA advises commenters that it issued a withdrawal of the referenced
interpretation in the same docket on November 7, 2013 (79 FR 66865) and
is not taking any action in this rule. To do so would be outside the
scope of the rule because the issue presented in the draft legal
interpretation is one that was not addressed in the NPRM.
Final Rule
    Upon review of the NPRM, the FAA made changes to the rule text in
Sec. Sec.  135.1 and 135.601. The FAA did not adopt the proposed
changes to Sec. Sec.  135.267 and 135.271. The applicability statement
in Sec.  135.1 was revised for clarity. In Sec.  135.601, the FAA
removed the definition of helicopter air ambulance because it was
unnecessary and revised the definitions of helicopter air ambulance
operation and medical personnel for clarity. All of these changes are
non-substantive.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 306(a) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) requires helicopter air ambulance operations
to comply with part 135 weather minimums and flight and duty time
rules whenever medical personnel are onboard the aircraft.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Weather Minimums (Sec.  135.609--Proposed Sec.  135.607)
    Currently, part 135 regulations require visibility of at least \1/
2\ statute mile during the day and 1 statute mile at night for VFR
helicopter operations at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the
surface in Class G airspace. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add more
stringent weather minimums for helicopter air ambulance operations. As
stated in the NPRM, this rule codifies the weather requirements of
OpSpec A021. See Table 4 below. The proposed weather minimums for
uncontrolled airspace are determined by whether the helicopter is
flying in a mountainous or non-mountainous area and whether, within
those classifications, the flight is taking place in a certificate
holder's local flying area or is a cross-country flight. The NPRM
defined a local flying area as 50 NM in any direction from an
operator's base of operation. A cross-country flying area is an area
other than a local flying area. Weather minimums are less stringent in
local flying areas because of pilots' increased familiarity with
obstacles and the operating environment. Based on the NPRM, in all
flying areas, helicopter pilots using an FAA-approved night vision
imaging system or FAA-approved HTAWS can fly in lower weather minimums
during night operations because those systems provide benefits for
avoidance of obstacles and controlled flight into terrain avoidance.

                                                 Table 4--VFR Ceiling and Flight Visibility Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Day                                    Night                    Night using an approved NVIS or HTAWS
            Location             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Ceiling        Flight visibility        Ceiling        Flight visibility        Ceiling        Flight visibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonmountainous local flying       800-feet..........  2 statute miles...  1,000-feet........  3 statute miles...  800-feet..........  3 statute miles.
 areas.
Nonmountainous non-local flying   800-feet..........  3 statute miles...  1,000-feet........  5 statute miles...  1,000-feet........  3 statute miles.
 areas.
Mountainous local flying areas..  800-feet..........  3 statute miles...  1,500-feet........  3 statute miles...  1,000-feet........  3 statute miles.
Mountainous non-local flying      1,000-feet........  3 statute miles...  1,500-feet........  5 statute miles...  1,000-feet........  5 statute miles.
 areas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received support for this provision from several
commenters. The NTSB supports codifying the more stringent weather
minimums of OpSpec A021. PHI agrees with the proposal. AAMS expressed
support for this provision but opposed the requirement that operators
must designate a local flying area, commenting that there are some
areas where using cross country weather minimums would be preferable.
They recommended replacing the word ``must'' with ``may.'' Similarly,
AMOA, Air Evac EMS, and individual members of ACCT commented that a
local flying area should be optional and that the FAA should also allow
for non-contiguous local flying areas. Safety and Flight Evaluations,
International agrees with the proposal to increase the VFR weather
minimums, but disagrees with the proposed implementation and commented
that there should not be a differentiation between the weather minimums
for ``local flying areas'' and ``cross country flying areas'' and that
the proposed rule inappropriately decreases the minimums when the
aircraft is equipped with an approved night vision imaging system or
HTAWS.
Final Rule
    The FAA is adopting this provision with several changes. Based on
the comments received, the FAA determined that it would be overly
restrictive to require operators to designate a local flying area that
would not be used. The certificate holder will not be required to
designate a local flying area but may do so in order to use the less
stringent weather minimums. If an operator does not designate a local
flying area, operations must be conducted in accordance with the more
restrictive non-local-flying-area minimums in the rule. Thus the change
in the rule will not negatively affect safety.
    As discussed in the NPRM, a pilot must demonstrate familiarity and
detailed knowledge of the hazards and high altitude terrain in local
flying areas in order to use the lower minimums. Thus, the final rule
includes a requirement that a pilot may not use the local flying area
weather minimums unless that pilot has passed an examination given by
the certificate holder within the 12 months prior to using the local
flying area weather minimums.
    Additionally, the final rule will allow non-contiguous local flying
areas rather than tying them to the certificate holder's base of
operations. This rule does not restrict the number of local flying
areas an operator may designate. The intended safety standard will be
maintained because before using the less restrictive local flying area
weather minimums pilots will demonstrate knowledge of that area. The
title of this section has been changed for clarification.
3. IFR Operations at Airports Without Weather Reporting (Sec.
135.611--Proposed Sec.  135.609)
    Current part 135 regulations only permit instrument flight into and
out of airports with an on-site weather reporting source. The FAA
proposed allowing helicopter air ambulance operators to conduct IFR
operations at airports and heliports without a weather reporting
facility if they can obtain weather reports from an approved weather
reporting facility located within 15 NM of the destination landing area
and meet other pilot and equipment requirements.
    The NTSB supported the proposal, agreeing that it would ``provide
an environment suitable for increased use of IFR,'' and noting that it
would partially respond to Safety Recommendation A-06-93 ``because of
the potential increase in the availability of IFR approaches for HEMS
operators.''
    AMOA commented that all part 135 operators should be able to use
these procedures. The FAA did not propose permitting all part 135
operators to use these procedures in the NPRM and to

expand the applicability at this time would not be within the scope of
this rule. Accordingly, the FAA is not extending this requirement to
all part 135 operators.
Use of an Area Forecast as an Alternate Weather Source
    Currently, OpSpec A021 is issued to helicopter air ambulance
operators and allows the use of an area forecast as an alternate
weather source. The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators noted that
the changes to OpSpec A021 were made because the FAA had determined
that navigation by instruments is safer than navigation by visual
reference. The revisions specifically included area forecasts to
facilitate greater use of the instrument flight rules system. Many
operators developed an instrument flight rules system that uses those
forecasts.
    The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators contended that this
proposal would require an operator to either add an approved automated
weather station at a location within 15 NM or to operate with visual
flight rules. This, according to the commenter, would significantly
undermine the ability of operators to add instrument operations as a
safety improvement. PHI, AMOA, ACCT, MaxViz, and the Health Care
District of Palm Beach County all echoed the call for adding the area
forecast as an acceptable alternative if a weather reporting station is
not available.
    The NPRM proposed a higher standard than that required by OpSpec
A021. That operations specification permits an operator to use an
approved weather reporting source if one is located within 15 NM of the
landing area but if there is not such a source within that distance
from the landing area, an area forecast may be used.
    In response to comments, and upon further review, the FAA has
changed the requirements of this rule from those proposed in the NPRM.
This final rule allows IFR operations at an airport without weather
reporting if the certificate holder has an area forecast for the
vicinity of the destination landing from the National Weather Service,
a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA. As
discussed in the NPRM, the FAA finds that an area forecast is
sufficient for the purposes of this rule because helicopter air
ambulance operators have a history of safely operating under an
exemption \8\ or under OpSpec A021, on which this rule is based. The
area forecast allowance of the exemption and OpSpec A021 is the same as
in this final rule language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Exemptions No. 9490 and 9490B (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-
2006-26407); Exemption No. 9665 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-
0169); Exemption No. 6175 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9195)
(granting authority for departures only); Exemption No. 6175G
(Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9195).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot and Equipment Requirements
    The FAA also revised the rule language to eliminate several
sections that were determined to be redundant with existing part 135
regulations. The redundancies removed were the requirements for pilots
to: (1) Have a current Sec.  135.297 instrument proficiency check; (2)
hold an instrument rating; (3) complete a course including a review of
IFR regulations, interpreting weather, reviewing instrument charts, and
crew resource management; (4) learn methods for determining present
visibility and ceilings; and (5) be tested on approaches authorized
under this provision. In all these cases the FAA finds that pilots who
conduct part 135 operations must already meet these standards, or that
these standards are sufficiently incorporated into current pilot
training requirements.
    The FAA also deleted the proposed requirements for aircraft to be
equipped with an autopilot if used in lieu of a second in command as
required by Sec.  135.101, and for the aircraft to be equipped with
navigation equipment appropriate to the approach to be flown. Again,
this requirement is redundant with existing Sec. Sec.  135.101 (SIC)
and 135.105 (autopilot), which must be followed during part 135
operations.
    In response to a comment from AMOA that the references to ``storm
scopes'' were outdated, the FAA deleted the references in proposed
Sec.  135.609(b)(2) to ``airborne weather radar'' and ``lightning
detection'' as types of severe-weather detection equipment. The final
rule requires that helicopters conducting these operations be
``equipped with functioning severe weather-detection equipment.''
Requirements for Departures
    The rule requires that the weather at the departure point must be
at or above the minimums for visual flight rules for a pilot to make an
IFR departure. The pilot in command is authorized to determine whether
the weather meets the takeoff requirements of part 97 or of the
certificate holder's operation specification.
    The FAA concludes that this new provision will increase instrument
flight and result in more air ambulance helicopters operating in a
positively controlled environment, thereby increasing safety.
4. Approach/Departure IFR Transitions (Sec.  135.613--Proposed Sec.
135.611)
    This rule was proposed to establish weather minimums for helicopter
air ambulances that have been using an instrument approach and are now
transitioning to visual flight for landing. This section is intended to
encourage IFR operations because of their safety benefits. Pilots on an
instrument approach would, upon reaching a point in space at a minimum
descent altitude or decision altitude, continue the flight to the
landing area under visual flight rules if conditions permit. The
weather minimums that pilots will follow are based on the type of
approach the pilot is flying and the distance between the missed
approach point and the heliport or landing area. Pilots continuing on
the ``proceed visually'' segment of an instrument approach into an
airport or heliport for which the approach is designed would follow the
weather minimums on the approach chart when completing that approach.
    The FAA notes that in most cases the rule permits flight under less
restrictive weather minimums than are currently allowed for cruise
flight in uncontrolled airspace. As noted in the NPRM, obstacles in the
vicinity of an instrument approach are flight-checked and marked on
instrument approach charts. It is less likely that pilots would
encounter unexpected obstacles when following an instrument approach
chart. However, if the distance of the VFR portion of the flight is 3
NM or more, then the VFR weather minimums for that class of airspace
apply. We emphasize that if a 3-NM-or-more VFR segment is flown in
Class G airspace, the applicable VFR weather minimums would be those
found in Sec.  135.609.
    The rule also permits a pilot to depart with a VFR-to-IFR
transition under the less restrictive weather minimums allowed for
approaches if the pilot follows an FAA-approved obstacle departure
procedure, has filed an IFR flight plan and obtains an IFR clearance at
a predetermined location, and the transition to IFR occurs no farther
than 3 NM from the departure point. Pilots who cannot meet these
requirements must use the standard VFR weather minimums required for
that class of airspace, which would be those found in Sec.  135.609 for
Class G airspace. As noted in the NPRM, a pilot who simply flies the
reverse course of the approach used when landing would not be following
an FAA-approved obstacle departure procedure. That is because this
procedure has not been flight-

checked to specific departure criteria and therefore obstacle clearance
cannot be guaranteed.
    A total of 21 individuals affiliated with PHI commented on the
proposal for this rule. These commenters supported the proposed rule
and noted that it is consistent with current OpSpec A021 requirements.
Commenters also noted that proposed Sec.  135.611(a)(2) contained an
incorrect cross reference to Sec.  135.611(a)(1)(i).
    Safety and Flight Evaluations, International stated concerns with
the construction of some PinS approaches. First, it noted the
complexity in distinguishing between ``proceed visually'' and ``proceed
VFR,'' because the weather minimums on the approach charts apply to
``proceed visually'' segments, while the distance from the missed
approach point to the landing area dictates the weather minimums. It
stated that having various minimums was complex and would not encourage
IFR operations. Next, it noted the possibility that a pilot could reach
the missed approach point, determine that the weather meets the
requirements to proceed VFR, and then lose sight of the landing area.
This would leave the pilot unable to continue IFR because the pilot
would no longer be in protected airspace. Finally, Safety and Flight
Evaluations, International commented that ICAO has established clearer
requirements for similar operations and asked whether the proposed
requirements comply with ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services--
Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) definitions which limits the proceed VFR
PinS procedure to no more than 3 kilometers.
    As a result of this comment, the FAA revised the rule language for
clarification. During preflight planning, pilots will be able to
identify the type of approach to be flown, the distance to the
destination from the missed approach point and determine the applicable
weather minimums for the VFR segment of the flight. This section does
not apply to ``proceed visually'' segments of instrument approaches,
which are the final segments (minimum descent altitude or decision
height) of instrument approaches prior to landing. VFR flight rules do
not apply to ``proceed visually'' segments. Instead, the weather
minimums for ``proceed visually'' segments are found on the approach
chart. This section applies to the ``proceed VFR'' segments of PinS
approaches and VFR maneuvering after transitioning to VFR from an IFR
approach.
    The FAA has reviewed the ICAO PANS-OPS requirements and concludes
that the ICAO operational requirements are not significantly different
from this rule. In both cases, once the pilot concludes the IFR portion
of the flight, the pilot is no longer under air traffic control and is
operating under VFR. Further, the ICAO PANS-OPS paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>
contemplates that member States may establish minimum visibility for
PinS Proceed VFR procedures. We note that this rule does not address
instrument approach design standards. These are what dictate the length
of a segment between a missed approach point and a landing area. The
FAA expects that pilots who transition to VFR and then encounter
weather below VFR minimums would execute a missed approach procedure, a
standard procedure followed when an instrument approach cannot be
completed, if available, or follow appropriate emergency procedures.
    The title of Sec.  135.613 has been changed so that it more
accurately reflects its subject. Additionally, the section has been
reorganized for clarification.
5. VFR Flight Planning (Sec.  135.615--Proposed Sec.  135.613)
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require helicopter air ambulance
pilots conducting operations under VFR to perform preflight planning to
determine the minimum safe altitude along the planned route.\9\ This
proposal would codify a provision in OpSpec A021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 306(a) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) requires the FAA to conduct rulemaking on
helicopter air ambulance operations to address ``flight request and
dispatch procedures.'' Though the benefits are less than costs for
this provision, it satisfies the Congressional mandate as required
by the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the rule requires helicopter air ambulance pilots
conducting VFR operations to evaluate, document, and plan to clear
terrain and obstacles by no less than 300 feet for day operations, and
500 feet at night. With this minimum safe cruise altitude established,
the pilot must then use it to determine the minimum required ceiling
and visibility for the flight. If the weather minimum will not permit
visual flight at the minimum safe cruise altitude, the pilot must
conduct the flight under IFR or not fly at all. The proposed rule
allowed for deviations from the planned flight path if conditions or
operational considerations make it necessary. If deviating, however,
the pilot must still observe the weather or terrain/obstruction
clearance requirements. This rule is intended to prevent obstacle
collisions by requiring pilots to be aware of the terrain and highest
obstacles along a planned route.
    The FAA received 79 comments on the proposal for VFR flight
planning, including comments from several individuals affiliated with
ACCT, Air Evac EMS, PHI, and REACH. Sixty-nine commenters, including
ACCT, AMOA, PHI, Air Evac EMS, Angel One Transport, and REACH, agreed
with the proposed language.
    NEMSPA strongly opposed the ``highest obstacle determination'' of
the proposed rule, commenting that this requirement would have
dangerous unintended consequences since pilots with launch time
requirements would have up to 40 percent of their available preflight
time taken up by a superfluous task, resulting in the likelihood that
some critical items will not be accomplished. This commenter further
asserted that the highest obstacle requirement should only apply when
flying outside of the local flying area in a helicopter not equipped
with a night vision imaging system or HTAWS, when the reported or
forecasted weather conditions are less than 5 statute miles visibility
and/or the ceiling is less than 3,000 feet above ground level or above
the highest obstacle on the course.
    Although agreeing with this proposal, several commenters, including
AMOA, Air Evac EMS, and individual members of ACCT, recommended
applying it to all part 135 operators. The NTSB agreed with the intent
of the requirement, but believes a number of issues should be
clarified. It commented that the FAA should provide guidance for
minimum route width requirements for obstacle and terrain clearance
evaluation, because aircraft may deviate from the planned course
centerline. Several commenters also noted that requiring that obstacles
be cleared vertically is not practical when some obstacles can be
cleared by flying around them and recommended adding a corresponding
route width to the visibility minimum. The NTSB also requested that the
FAA clarify whether route evaluations must be performed before each
flight or if an approval of a flight path can be performed on a less
frequent basis for frequently flown routes.
    The FAA has determined that establishing a minimum route width
would have an overly burdensome effect on helicopter air ambulance
operations and pose operational difficulties for pilots who fly in
mountainous or urban environments. A minimum route width would require
pilots to fly at an altitude sufficient to clear the obstacles within
the designated route width. As an example, a 3-mile route width
requirement could force a pilot who safely flies under visual flight
rules in a valley to operate at an altitude above

the highest peak because the mountains on each side would be included
in the route width. This could easily place a visual flight operator
into instrument flight conditions. The FAA recognizes that helicopter
air ambulance operations can be safely conducted under VFR, and
therefore has chosen not to impose this limitation. Operators would
need to evaluate the route prior to each VFR operation.
    This requirement is intended to prevent obstacle collisions by
ensuring that pilots know the minimum safe altitude that would permit
clearance for all obstacles along the route. Therefore, the FAA
considers that VFR flight planning is not a superfluous task for pilots
with launch time requirements, but rather an important safety
requirement. Additionally, the FAA concludes that all helicopter air
ambulance operations flights conducted under VFR will benefit from this
safety requirement, and does not intend to restrict this requirement to
flights outside of the local flying or flights without a night vision
imaging system or HTAWS.
    This rule requires a pilot to perform preflight planning from
takeoff to landing for each flight conducted under VFR. This rule does
not permit a pilot to conduct preflight planning on a less frequent
basis for frequently flown routes. The purpose of flight planning
before each flight is to ensure that the information used is current,
as conditions and obstacles may change between each flight. However,
the FAA notes that if a route is flown routinely, the amount of time
required to do the preflight planning may be reduced. As noted in the
NPRM, a helicopter air ambulance mission may include more than one leg.
The flight plan may be completed for the whole mission prior to the
first leg, but each subsequent leg of the mission must be reconsidered
before takeoff and amended as appropriate.
    The FAA will not apply this requirement to all commercial
helicopter operations because it is not within the scope of the
rulemaking.
    This requirement is adopted as proposed with minor edits for
clarification.
6. Pre-Flight Risk Analysis (Sec.  135.617--Proposed Sec.  135.615)
    The FAA proposed establishing a requirement for helicopter air
ambulance operators to conduct a preflight risk analysis. The risk
analysis would focus on such variables as the characteristics of the
planned flight path, flight crewmember ability to safely conduct the
operation, weather, and whether the flight has been rejected by another
operator. The purpose of this exercise is to give certificate holders a
way to assess risk and determine whether any risks can be mitigated so
that the flight can be conducted safely.
    A total of 83 commenters, including Air Methods, Advanced Life
Support and Emergency Response Team (A.L.E.R.T.), Med-Trans Corporation
(Med-Trans), NEMSPA, the NTSB, REACH, and Staff for Life commented on
this section. Several of those commenters, including ACCT, MedCenter,
MedServ International, LLC (MedServe), NEMSPA, and NTSB agreed with the
proposal.
Operational Considerations
    The NTSB noted that this rule should not be a substitute for the
safety benefits that would be provided by an OCC. Other commenters,
including HAI, Med-Trans, and REACH, thought that the proposed
requirement might duplicate the requirements for an OCC or safety
management program. A.L.E.R.T. said that documenting risk assessments
for every flight would be counterproductive and would delay responses
without improving safety and that it performs a risk assessment for
every shift--not every flight. Staff for Life said that the risk
assessment is not necessary because it has never done anything to save
lives and pilots are constantly assessing the risks during preflight,
flight, and post-flight.
    The FAA disagrees that a pilot's in-flight assessment of risks is a
sufficient substitute for the preflight risk assessment. Rather, they
are complementary. The purpose of assessing risk before an operation is
to be able to mitigate those risks before the operation, thereby
preventing a pilot from encountering an unmanageable situation while in
the air. It is of course possible that a pilot will encounter risks
while conducting the helicopter air ambulance operation despite having
performed a preflight risk assessment, and it is then that the pilot's
skills will be used to mitigate those risks. As discussed in the NPRM,
the FAA and the NTSB have identified several accidents which may have
been prevented had a preflight risk analysis been completed. The NTSB
concluded that ``implementation of flight risk evaluation before each
mission would enhance the safety of emergency medical services
operations.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NTSB, Special Investigation Report on Emergency Medical
Services Operations (NTSB/SIR-06/01) 4 (Jan. 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule requires the pilot in command to conduct a preflight risk
analysis before the first leg of a helicopter air ambulance operation.
As discussed in the NPRM, it would be completed before departure on the
first leg, but take into account factors that may be encountered during
the entire operation. The FAA acknowledges that certain parts of a
preflight risk analysis can be accomplished at the beginning of a
shift. However, time-sensitive components of a preflight risk analysis,
such as crew fatigue, weather, required fuel, and route-specific
information, should be conducted as close to the flight launch as
possible. A blanket analysis at the beginning of each shift may not
provide an accurate risk assessment.
    The FAA acknowledges that the pre-flight risk analysis will be an
additional requirement that must be performed before beginning a
helicopter air ambulance operation and certificate holders may not be
able to launch a flight as quickly as before. The initial regulatory
evaluation estimated that the preflight risk analysis would take 10
minutes to complete. The FAA has determined that a 10-minute delay is
acceptable because of the safety benefit of identifying risks before
flight.
    The FAA also understands that there will be overlap between this
requirement and the OCC requirement for certificate holders with 10 or
more helicopter air ambulances. Under that requirement, both the
operations control specialist and the pilot in command will be required
to complete and approve the risk analysis worksheet. This overlap is
intended to provide larger operations with an additional measure of
review over the flight's risk analysis.
Content of the Pre-Flight Risk Analysis
    Thirty-five commenters, including Air Methods and REACH, did not
agree with the proposal to require certificate holders to establish a
procedure to determine whether another operator has refused or rejected
a flight, saying that such a procedure would be too haphazard and
unreliable to serve as a regulatory requirement. AMOA said the
provision is unfair and unrealistic without a companion requirement for
operators to report a flight rejection. PHI, like AMOA, believes
reporting of flight rejections by other operators cannot be done
uniformly unless the other operators are required to report that
information.