AFS-14-461-E

Exemption No. 17162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0693

of the INTERIOR (DOI)

 

for an exemption from § 133.45(e)(1)

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated August 1, 2014, Mr. David Parsons, United States Department of the Interior 

(DOI), Office of Aviation Services, 300 E. Mallard Dr., Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 83706-3991 

petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of DOI for an exemption 

from § 133.45(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed 

exemption, if granted, would allow DOI MD-530, MD-500D, MD-900, Bell-206-L4, Bell407, Bell-205 and AS-350B3 contracted helicopters to conduct short-haul missions in 

conjunction with search and rescue operations.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation.

Section 133.45(e)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that the rotorcraft-load combination of Class 

D may be conducted only in a rotorcraft type certificated under transport Category A for the 

operating weight and provide hover capability with one engine inoperative at that operating 

weight and altitude.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that helicopter short-haul operations are an effective tool in meeting safe 

and efficient objectives while conducted under the DOI’s oversight. Most of these operations 

are assigned to contracted civil operators that have helicopters based in different locations 

such as National Parks; however, some aircraft are owned and operated by DOI, such as the 
2

Park Police in Washington, D.C. All short-haul operations conducted in National Parks fall 

under DOI operational control and these missions are performed by DOI trained and approved 

personnel. Additionally, all short-haul operations conducted by civil operators contracted by 

the DOI in National Parks are done using only single engine helicopters. 

The petitioner states the need for short-haul programs have been proven every year and that 

National Parks need this added capability of saving injured people’s lives by this proven safe 

process. DOI contracts single-engine and twin-engine helicopters that have the best high 

altitude performance in production. The petitioner states that the only helicopters it approves 

to perform these missions are MD-500D, MD-530, MD-900, Bell-412, Bell-206-L4, Bell-407, 

Bell-205, and the AS-350B3. However, the petitioner states that none of these aircraft meet 

the current performance requirements listed in 14 CFR § 133.45(e)(1). The cost to contract 

additional helicopters to perform this single short-haul mission that meet this requirement 

would place an economic hardship on taxpayers. The petitioner maintains that granting this 

exemption would not adversely effect the excellent safety record of these programs.

The petitioner states that all DOI short-haul programs must be approved by the DOI in 

accordance with its Short-Haul Operations Guide. This guide provides all the detailed 

requirements for each helicopter and its required equipment. This guide also describes the 

DOI training and certification requirements including a plan of when and how short-haul will 

be used. The operations plan includes a GO/NO-GO process for risk management purposes 

and all pilots, aircraft, and crew members are inspected and trained by certified DOI personnel 

annually to perform short-haul missions. Contracted entities conducting short-haul operations 

for the DOI must have a current FAA part 133 operating certificate as well as have their pilots 

trained and qualified in-accordance with 14 CFR part 133. The DOI does not intend to extend 

public use status to the civil contractors hired for conducting short-haul operations in National 

Parks. 

The petitioner states that none one of the aircraft it or it’s contractors operate meets the current

performance requirements listed in 14 CFR 133.45(e)(1). The cost to contract additional 

helicopters to perform this single short-haul mission that meet this requirement would place 

an economic hardship to the taxpayers. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the DOI’s petition for exemption, including supporting 

information, and finds a grant of exemption would not provide a level of safety at least equal to 

that provided by the rule from which exemption is be sought. Since the DOI uses only single 

engine helicopters for short-haul operations in National Parks, an equivalent level of safety cannot 

be maintained should an engine or power failure occur if compared to the level of safety provided 

under 14 CFR 133.45(e)(1). 

The petitioner states that based on their extensive training and oversight program along with 

the proven safety track record of short-haul operations, they believe an exemption would not 

adversely affect safety. The FAA does not dispute the safety record, risk management 
3

techniques and training program conducted by DOI. However, the FAA disagrees that because 

crewmembers are trained on short-haul operations that safety would not be adversely affected

by using single-engine helicopters that cannot meet the requirements of section 133.45(e)(1). 

Should the only engine on a single engine helicopter fail, the helicopter would be unable to 

maintain altitude and would ultimately impact the surface, placing not just the intended rescue 

target at an unacceptable level of risk, but the entire flight crew and rotorcraft as well. The 

DOI did not provide how they intend to mitigate the risk of injury or death to persons should 

an engine failure occur on a single engine helicopter while conducting short-haul operations. 

In grant of exemption No. 8116D, where a petitioner requested similar relief, the FAA was 

very specific in stating that the petitioner “was not exempt from the requirement that the 

aircraft provide hover capability with one engine inoperative at that weight and altitude.” The 

FAA went on to reiterate in the conditions and limitations that the petitioner was not relieved 

from the portion of § 133.45(e)(1) which states, “...and provide hover capability with one 

engine inoperative at that operating weight and altitude.” Since the petitioner contracts some 

of their short-haul operations to single-engine helicopter providers, there is no hover 

capability if an engine failure were to occur. 

The petitioner states that none of the aircraft it or its contractors operate can meet the 

requirements of 133.45(e)(1), and that purchasing or contracting new aircraft would place an 

economic hardship on taxpayers. In grant of exemption No. 7118F, the FAA recognized that 

there existed at the time no domestic or foreign-manufactured helicopters operated in the 

United States that, when considering the altitudes, temperatures, and operating weights typical 

of mountain rescue operations, had FAA-approved performance providing compliance with 

the one engine inoperative hover requirements of § 133.45(e)(1). However, that grant of 

exemption was specific to operations in mountain rescue in a defined operating area under 

specific conditions and limitations based on the detailed information submitted by the 

petitioner. Furthermore, Exemption No. 7118F covers the operation of multi-engine 

helicopters that have proven capabilities of hovering out of ground effect should one of its two 

engines fail during search and rescue operations in specific operating environments. In that 

case, by granting relief, the FAA continued to allow rescue operations where human life or 

health was in jeopardy in geographic areas where civil helicopter hoist rescue operations have 

not otherwise been possible. The FAA noted that those operations had not been possible 

because, generally speaking, most civil rotorcraft have an inability to comply with section 

133.45(e) at altitudes greater than 2,500 feet MSL. Although the FAA requested additional 

information in this case from DOI, the petitioner did not provide sufficient information for the 

FAA to evaluate and make a similar finding with regard to the public interest or safety.

Finally, the FAA notes that the petitioner requested relief on behalf of itself and several civil 

operators with which it contracts to conduct short-haul missions in National Parks. However,

under the FAA’s exemption policy, the FAA cannot grant broad relief to the DOI that would 

apply to other operators, as exemptions are not transferable or shareable. The FAA notes that 

should DOI wish to submit a new petition for exemption, DOI contracted operators would 

have to petition the FAA separately. Each petition for exemption would be evaluated on its 
4

own merit for ensuring an equivalent level of safety is maintained pertinent to the aircraft 

used. 

The FAA’s Decision:

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of United States Department of 

the Interior (DOI) for an exemption from 14 CFR § 133.45(e) (1).

Issued in Washington, D.C., on November 23, 2016.

/s/

John s. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service