: j 

CORPORAT E 

HELICOPTERS 

Septembers, 2011 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 NE Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 9945 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0884 

To Whom It May Concern: 

This letter is to request an extension to Exemption No. 9945, granted to our 

company, Shier Aviation dba Corporate Helicopters, by Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D., 

Federal Air Surgeon, on October 21, 2009. This exemption is due to expire on 

October 31, 2011. 

Since our exemption we have continued to operate our business in accordance with 

all applicable FAA regulations, including the Anti Drug and Alcohol Testing Program 

requirements of Part 135. 

Sincerely, 

Deanm, Shier 

Chief Executive Officer 

Enclosures 

Cc: Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Carl K.Allen 

Aviation Safety Inspector - Operations 

SAN FSDO 

a division of Shier Aviation Corporation 

3753 John J. Montgomery Dr. Suite 2, San Die^o CA 92123 USA Phone (858) 505-5650 Fax (858) 874-3038 

www.CorporateHelicopters.com 
Q 

US.Deportment 800 independence Ave. S w 

ofTransportaTion Washington, DO ?0591 

Federal Avtation 

Administration 

October 21, 2009 Exemption No. 9945 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0884 

Ms, Deann J. Shier 

Chief Executive Officer 

Shier Aviation Corporation dba Corporate Helicopter 

3753 John J. Montgomery Drive, Suite 2 

San Diego, CA 92123 

Dear Ms. Shier: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 15, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Shier Aviation Corporation dba Corporate Helicopters 

(Corporate Helicopters) for an exemption from part 121, appendices I and J of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), That exemption, if granted, would allow Corporate 

Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulation, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program. 

Although the petitioner requested relief from part 121, appendices I and J, that section has 

since been redesignated to part 120. The redesignation was included in the "Drug and 

Alcohol Testing Program" fmal rule published in the Federal Register on 

May 14, 2009 (74 FR 22649). 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Corporate Helicopters. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that in this petitioner's case, § 91.147 air tour operations by Solid Edge were closely 

AAM-09-399-E 
connected to Solid Edge's part 135 operations and that combining two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided 

by the current regulations. Under one testing program, the pilots would still be subject to drug 

and alcohol testing in accordance with appendices I and J of 

part 121. Furthermore, the removal of duplicate testing would eliminate an unnecessary 

financial burden on Solid Edge. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, 1 find that— 

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of 

exemption; 

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authorit}' contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Shier Aviation Corporation dba Corporate Helicopters an 

exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Corporate Helicopters, which is 

operating under separate parts of the regulation, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under 

one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Corporate Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations 

at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Corporate Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on October 31, 2011, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosures 
Exemption No. 9703 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

SOLID EDGE AVIATION, LLC 

for an exemption from pan 121 

appendices I and J 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0181 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated October 23, 2007, Mr. Harold Weir, Chief Pilot/Designated Emplo>er 

Representative, Solid Edge Aviation, LLC. (Solid Edge), 1225 Airport Road, Sedona^ AZ 

86336, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Solid Edge for an 

exemption from part 121, appendices I and J of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit Solid Edge, which is operating 

under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one 

testing program. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation: 

Part 121, appendices I and J of Title 14, prescribes, in pertinent part, that the drug and 

alcohol testing program is designed to prevent accidents and injuries that result from 

the use of prohibited drtigs and the misuse of alcohol by any employee who performs 

safety-sensitive functions for a part 119 certificate holder with authority to operate 

under parts 121 and/or 135 or an operator as defined in § 91.147. 

AFS-08-080-E 
The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

Solid Edge petitioned the FAA for an exemption from the regulatory requirements to 

implement and maintain two separate drug and alcohol testing programs for its part 

135 air carrier operation and pan 91 air tour operation (Red Rock Biplane and 

Helicopter Tours). The petitioner has eight pilots, several of which fly for its part 91 

air tour and part 135 operations. In this situation, these pilots have the possibility of 

being randomly tested for both operations at the same time. Solid Edge contends that 

this more than doubles its drug testing expenses, which is a financial hardship to a 

company of its size. Solid Edge's designated employer representatives (DER) claims 

that he can adequately manage all personnel under one drug and alcohol testing 

program and still meet the FA.-^'s requirements. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2007 

(72 FR 70370). No comments were received. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner's request and supporting materials, and 

finds that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest and maintain a level of 

safety equivalent to that provided by ihe current regulations. 

The FAA's drug and alcohol testing regulations (pan 121, appendices I and J) require 

a part 119 certificate holder with authorir. to operate under parts 121 and/or 135, or an 

operator as defined in § 91.147. to implement a drug and alcohol testing program. 

Under the regulations, when a company, such as Solid Edge, conducts both 135 

operations and part 91 air tour operations, it is required to implement separate and 

distinct testing programs, as if each certificate holder were an individual employer. 

This means that all the testing requirements, such as pre-employment testing, 

confidenfiality of results, DER. training programs, etc., must be separate. Therefore, 

the FAA concurs that Solid Edge requires an exemption from appendices I and J of 

part 121 in order to combine its drug and alcohol testing programs into one. 

Solid Edge has eight pilots, several of which fiy for both part 135 and part 91 

operations. As an air tour operator conducting flights under § 91.147, Solid Edge has 

no other obligations for purposes of conducting this business except for the 

requirement to implement a drug and alcohol testing program. Requiring separate drug 

and alcohol testing programs would unnecessarily subject Solid Edge's pilots to 

duplicate testing. This, in turn, increases Solid Edge's cost of operation without an 

increase in safety. Therefore, the FAA. finds that, in this case, § 91.147 air tour 

operations by Solid Edge are so closely connected to Solid Edge's part 135 operations 

that combining two testing programs into one will be in the public interest and 

maintain a level of safety equi\alent to that provided by the current regulations. Under 

one testing program, the pilots will still be subject to drug and alcohol testing in 

accordance with appendices I and J of part 121. Furthermore, the removal of duplicate 
testing VVTII eliminate an unnecessary financial burden for Solid Edge. It Ls simphunnecessary' to burden Solid Edge by requiring them to conduct two separate lestmg 

programs when one testing program will suffice to ensure the level of safer)" reouirec 

by the rules. 

The FA-A's Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exempiiirn is in the rurlic irieref^ 

Therefore, pursuant to the authorit>' contained in 49 L'.S.C. §^ 40113 and 4-i701- deleg^ie-c :. 

me by the Administrator, Solid Edge Aviation, LLC. is granted an exempuon frcm 14 CFR 

pan 121, appendices I and J to the extent necessar>' to permit Solid Edge A^"ia^on, iha: ii 

operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safe^\•-sen5iti^"e ercrloyees uzjc-c 

one testing program, subject to the following conditions and limiiaiions. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Solid Edge are subject to the drug and alcohol regnlaticns £i sJ] linii 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemen:ed under ihe .iu5r:ces : : 

the Solid Edge part 135 operation, not under the pan 91. 

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2010, unless sooner superseded cr resciz-iei. 

Issued in \Vashin2t0n. DC. on June 2. 2008. 

/s' 

Frederick E. Tilton. MD 

Federal Air Sureeon 
September 15.2009 

CORPORAT E 

HEI . ICOPT E R S 

US. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 NE Jersev Avenue. SE. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington. DC 20590 

To Whom It May Concern: 

RE: Request for Exemption Shier Aviation Corporation IVSA655S 

After a review of 14 CFR Part 91.147 I respectfully request an exemption to operate under one TAA 

Approved Ami-Drug Program per regulation (14 CFR Part 121. appendices i and J); not two identical 

programs for the same company. 

1 believe the rulemaking committee should change this regulation to allow an on-demand air carrier 

operating under both Parts 135 and 91.147 to use their Part 135 Anti-Dnig program. The intended value o^ 

the regulation is good, in that you are now requiring testing for companies that had previously escaped the 

requirement under Part 91. The concept is sound for a company operating solely under Part 91.147, but the 

higher standard of Pan 135 should be the standard to which a company's program is held. 

Let us examine what benefit there is to have two completely separate programs for the same company 

operating under both Part 135 and Part 91.147. There are zero added benefits to the general public. 

There are many reasons that two programs in one company should not be required from both the FAA and 

Operator perspectives. There is a complete duplication of effort for the F.AA, because two audits of the 

same people and same infomiation wastes the FAA's precious time, where they can truly be making a 

difference. The second audit requires the FAA to book an additional da> for two FAA staff, costing more in 

travel, expenses and wages for the FA.A employees. 

It is also a duplication of efforts for operators. Except for the fact that the regulation requires a separate 

administrator to run the program, it is a completely redundant procedure. As presently written, a second 

employee must now duplicate the efforts of the original administrator. This second round of testing the 

same people wastes the second admlnish-ator's time since the original intent of the regulation was already 

accomplished under the first program. Both programs require the exact same compliance of preemployment testing, random 30% drug testing and anti-drug training for safet>' sensitive individuals. 

For the second program, the FAA has federal funds to use that are not available lo the operator. Especially, 

in these economically challenging times it is not fair to cause the operator to incur added costs of preemployment testing, random drug testing, records administration and two designated employer 

representatives. This also means duplication of audits and more time wasted at the company level. Ihis 

duplicate system would also be a nightmare at the paperwork, filing and compliance level, as there is more 

opportunit) for error. It costs the operator several thousand dollars over the course of each year to 

administrate a program. Doubling this cost is not prudent. 

There is a lot of administration required to properly run the Anti-Drug Piogram. and 1 believe thai this 

program is vital to all a.spects of aviation. 1 would be in favor of expanding the definition of safety sensitive 

to anyone flying, including hot air balloons, flight instructors and private pilots. All ofthese pilots should 

all be on a program, since all are flying in the same airspace. This would truly make our industry and skies 

safer. But this Pan 91.147 regulation requiring an already compliant, safety-orientated small company lo 

implement a completely redundant program is just wrong and should be investigated and changed. 

a division at Shier .Aviation Corporation 

3753 John J. Montgomery Dr. Suite 2, San Diego CA 92123 USA Phone (858) 505-5650 Fax (858) 874-3038 

www.CorporaieHelicoprers.com 
i 

» 

I 

Shier Aviation Corporation 

Exemption Request 

Page Two 

1 have talked with many individuals within the FAA and the FAA Anti-Drug Program and the Helicopter 

Association International and have yet to find anyone who sees a benefit in this redundancy. 

\ have heard that your organization has not granted any exemptions. If my exemption is not granted, I wiU 

be forced to lay off several employees and operate only under my Part 135 Anti-Drug Program, as it would 

be too costly and convoluted for me to comply with the FAA regulations as currently written. 1 will also 

bring this issue lo the political forefront showing thai time, energy, resources and money are being wasted 

in useless bureaucratic duplication. 

Sincerely, 

)earm J. Shier 

Chief Executive Officer 

Shier Aviation Corporation 

Copies to: 

Duncan D. Hunter, Congressman 

Barbara Boxer. US Senator 

Diane Feinstein. US Senator 

Jerry Pendzick. Manager San Diego FSDO