Wes t Ben d AJr < Inc . Pos t OlTic e Bo * 40 0 Wes t Bend , W l 5309 5 262.334.560 3 phon e 262.334.566 2 (a

x Fon dd u La c Skypor t

N630 8 Rollin g Meadow s O r F.m d d u Uc . W l 5493" " 920.922.6U0 0 phon e 920.922.S70()fa. T

'" . \.-•^ . - 1 • ^ ? 0 mumiatMrtopt.tfi.Ym t •(/««» * peon c rOM > D U U C •rrrOM T « DFMDO H O F IW* T ttW O « » Jul y 11,201 1

U.S . Dept . o f

Transportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave. , S E Washingto n D.C . 2059 0 Ladie s an dGentlemen : Exemptio n No . 996 5 Regulatory Docke t

No . FAA-2009-099 0 RE : Extensio n Reques t

Wes t Ben dAir , Inc . woul dlik e t o appl y for a n extensio n t o ou r

Exemptio n No . 9965 , Regulatory Docke t No . FAA-2009-099 0 for aperio do f

two-year s (fro mth e origina l expiration dat e o f 11

- 30-2011 ) ou t

t o 11-30-2013 , for

th e sam e reason s sighte di n ou r origina l petitio n (end.) . W e hav e included , for

you r convenience , acop y of

: (1. ) you r

lette r approvin g ou r

exemptio n reques t an d(2. ) ou r

origina l petitio n for

exemption .

CO^^tVK ^ Crai g Devenpor t Directo r o f Operation s Wes t Ben dAir , Inc .& U.SLDeparimen t 80 0 independenc e Av e . S W O f fonsporlafon Wastimgron . D C 2059 1 A4nilnl(lrQtlo n Novembe r

16 , 200 9 Exemptio n No . 996 5 Regulator y Docke t

No . FAA-2009-099 0 Mr . Joh n M . Morri s Directo r o f Operation s Wes t Ben dAir , Inc . P.O . Bo x 40 9 Wes t Bend , W l 5309 5 Dea r Mr . Morris : 

# COPY

Thi s lette r

i s t o infor myo u tha t

w e hav e grante dyou r

reques t fo r exemption . I t

transmit s ou r decision , explain s it s basis , an dgive s yo u th e condition s an dlimitation s o f th e exemption , includin g th e dat e i t

ends . Th e Basi s fo r

Ou r Decisio n B y lette r date dOctobe r

12 , 2009 , yo u petitione dth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) o n behal f o f Wes t Ben dAir , Inc . (W B Air) , fo r a n exemptio n fro mpar t 12 0 o f Titl e 14 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (1 4 CFR) . Tha i exemption , i f granted , woul dallo w W B Air , whic h i s operatin g unde r

separat e part s o f

th e regulations , t o cove r it s safety-sensitiv e employee s unde r on e testin g program . Th e FA A ha s determine dtha t goo dcaus e exist s fo r

no t publishin g asummar y o f th e petitio n i n th e Federa l Registe r

becaus e th e requeste dexemptio n woul dno t se t aprecedent , an dan y delay i n actin g o n thi s petitio n woul db e detrimenta l t o W B Air . Th e FA A ha s issue dagran t o f exemptio n i n circumstance s simila r i n al l materia l respect s t o thos e presente di n you r

petition . I n Gran t

o f Exemptio n No . 970 3 (cop y enclosed) , th e FA A foun dtha t

Soli dEdge' s § 91.14 7 ai r tou r operation s wer e closel y connecte dt o it s par t 13 5 operations . Tli e FA A als o foun dtha t combinin g th e petitioner' s tw o testin g program s int o on e woul db e i n th e publi c interes t an dwoul dmaintai n a n equivalen t leve l o f safety t o tha t provide db y th e curren t

regulations . Thus , th e FA A conclude di t wa s unnecessar y t o burde n th e petitione r

b y requirin g i t

t o conduc t

tw o separat e testin g programs . AAM-10-038- EHavin g reviewe dyour reason s fo

r requestin g a

n exemption , I fm

dthat — • the y d o no t diffe r materially fromthos e presente db y th e petitioner

i n th e enclose dgrant o f exemption ; • th e reason s state db

y th e FA A fo r grantin g th e enclose dexemptio n als o appl y to th e situatio n yo u present ; an

d • agrant

o f exemptio n i s i

n th e publi c interest . Ou r Decisio n Unde r th e authorit

y containe di

n 4 9 U.S.C . 4011 3 an

d44701 , whic h th e FA

A Administrato r ha s delegate dto me , I hereby grant W B Air a n exemptio n frompar

t 12 0 to th e extent necessar y t o allo w WB Air , whic h i s operatin g under separate part s of

th e regulations , t o cover it s safety-sensitiv e employee s under on e tesrin g program , subjec t to th e condition s an

d limitation s describe dbelow . Condition s an dLimitation s 1 . Employee s of

W B Air ar e subjec t t o th e dru g an dalcoho l regulation s a t al l time s whil e conductin g operation s unde r par t 13 5 or par t 91 . 2 . Th e dru g an dalcoho l testin g progra mmus t b e implemente dunde

r th e auspice s of th e W B Air par t 13 5 operation , no t

under th e par t 91 . Thi s exemptio n terminate s o n November

30 , 2011 , unles s sooner

supersede do r

rescinded . Sincerely , /s / Frederic k E . Tilton , M.D . Federa l Air Surgeo n 

# Cop y

EnclosureSIka t Bco d Air , Inc . Fon d d u U c Skjrpo n pos t Office Bo

x 409 N630 8 Rolling ! Mt^adow i I> . We u Bend . W l 5309

5 Fon d .l u Uc . W l 5493 7 262.334.5603 phnn e 920.922.600 0 phon C UtP l O F TRA'VSPOflTATiO M 262.334.566

2 f u 920.922.8706 fk x DO^ . Cl 3 October 12.200 9 .>:' * : T ; ^ ^ ':Z. ' U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n Docket Managemen t

Syste m 120 0 New Jerse y Ave . S E Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Rm . W12-14 0 Washmgton , D C 2059 0 Lantie s an dGetitlcmen : 

# COP Y

Wes t BendAir , Inc . i s seekin g relief from1 4 CF RPar t 120.11 7 (b ) (2) . Fonnerl y 1 4 CF R12 1 Appendi x I (DC

) (b ) (2) . a s i t

i s currentl y bein g interpreted , whic h i s requirin g u s t o maintai n tw o (2 ) completely separate Rando mDru g an dAlcoho l Testin g Programs . Wes t BendAi r i s i n complete agreemen

t wit h th e regulation s t o eliminate Dru g an d alcoho l abus e throug h implementatio n o f aRando mDru g an

dAlcoho l Testin g Progra

m whic h ha s bee n accomplishe dthroug h it s Charte r operatio n unde

r Par t 13 5 fo r bot h pilot s an dmechanics . However , Wes t BendAi r believe s i t

i s a n unnecessar

y burde n fo

r th e compan y t o can y asecon dRando mDru g an dAlcoho l Testin g Progra mt o cove r th e Air Tour operatio n unde r

Par t 91.147 . Even thoug h Wes t

Ben dAi r utilize s differen

t classe s o f

aircraf t fo r eac h operation , (Mult

i Engin e for

it s Par t 13 5 operatio n an dSingl e Engineforit s Par t 91.14 7 operation ) al l th e aircraf t ar e flown b y th e same pilot s an dmaintaine db y th e same mechanics , al l o f whom are covere db y Wes t

BendAir' s Rando mDru g an dAlcoho l Testin g Progra munde r it s Par t 13 5 certificate a s mentione dabove . Afte r carefii l consideratio n o f

th e regulations an

dliterature distribute db y th e U.S . Department

o f Transportation , (DOT ) Wes t BendAir i s als o o f th e opinio n that , a s note d below , th e implementatio n o f aduplicate RandomDru g an dAlcoho l Testin g Progra

mi s no t required . Th e publicatio n '"Bes t

Practice s fo

r DO T RandomDru g an

dAlcoho l Testing " (actuall y writte n an dpublishe dprio r to th e dru g rul e bein g switche dfrom1 4 CF RPar t 12 1 to 1 4 CF RPar t 120 , ye t stil l current

o n th e DO T We

b Sight) fromth e U. S Departmen t o f Transportation-Offic e o f

th e Secretary-Offic e o f

Dru g an dAlcoho l Polic y an

d Complianc e ask s th e questio n o n pag e tw o (2 ) i n sectio n IV . "(Sett4ng-Up aRando m Poo l o f Employees)" . Under

itemB . "Ca

n a n employe r regulated b v differen

t DO T agencie s pu t

it s employee s i n th e same rando mpools?" . Th e answer s i s "YES . Employer s an dConsortia/Thir dPart y Administrator s (C/TPAs ) subjec t t o mor e tha n on e DO T Agenc y dru g an dalcoho l testin g rul e may combin e covere dDO T safety-sensitiv e employee s int o asingl e rando mpool. "

# cop v

Surel y i f employee s o f

th e same compan

y tha t ar e covere db y differen

t DO T agencie s suc h a s FAA , FMCSA , FRA , FTA , PHMSA , USCG , ar e allowe dt o b e combine dint o a singl e rando mpool , wouldn' t i t ^s o stan dth e tes t

o f reaso n (b e logical ) fo r

compan y employee s covere dunde r

jus t on e DO T agenc y namel y th e FA A eve n thoug h operatin g under tw o (2 ) differen

t regulation s (suc h a s 1 4 CF RPart i 3 5 an d1 4 CF

RPar t 91 ) t o b e give n th e same allowance ? I can' t thin k o f anythin g mor e "Regulatio n Number Different " tha

n FMCS A - (Moto r

Carrier ) operatin g unde r

4 9 CFRPart

38 2 an dFR

A - (Raifroad) operatin g unde r 4 9 CF RPar t 21 9 a s give n i n thei r

example . S o wha t i s th e "drug " differenc e i

n operation s unde r

Par t 13 5 V s Par

t 9 1 i n compariso n to Par t 38 2 V s Part

219 ? Unles s 1 4 CF Ran d4 9 CF Rare totall y unrelate dan dwarran t differen t considerations , whic h i s highl y doubtful . Pleas e als o note tha

t i f a n Employer , Wes t

BendAi r i s a"Company " ye t

1 beUeve tha

t i t woul dals o fi

t th e definitio n o f

a n Employer , ha s tw o (2 ) employees , on e covere db y let s sa y th e FA A - (Aviation) , an dth e other covere db y let s sa

y th e FMCS A - (Moto r Carrier) , tha

t Employer , accordin g t o thei r example , i s stil l considere dt o b e On e (1 ) Enq)loyer "Company " an dNO T Tw o (2 ) differen t Employer s "Companies" ! I poin t thi s ou t onl y becaus e th e FAA* s positio n o n th e subjec t i s contrar y t o what ha s bee n place di n writin g b y th e DOT . O n pag e 3 o f

th e same pamphle t

i n Sectio n C . Th e questio n i s asked : "Doe s a n employe e performin g dutie s covere db y mor e tha n on e DO T Agenc y nee dt o b e i n multipl e pools? ^ Th e answer

is : "A n employe e perforndn g dutie s subjec t t o mor e tha n on e DO T Agency' s regulation s mus t b e randoml y teste ds t

th e percenUg e rat e establishe dfo r th e calenda r

yea r b y th e DO T Agenc y regulatin g mor « tha n 5 0 percen t o f th e employee' s function . S o i f yo u hav e a n employe e wh o drive s you r truck s 7 5 percen t of th e tim e an doperate s you r transi t busse s 2 5 percen t

o f th e time, tha t

employe e need s t o b e i n th e FMCSA-regulate dpooL " Pleas e note , a s indicate dfromth e abov e example , shoul dWes t Ben dAi r choos e o n it s ow n t o incorporate tw o separate Rando mTestin g Programs , th e employe e woul dstil l onl y nee dt o b e place di n on e (1 ) rando mpoo l no t both . Th e U.S . Department

o f transportatio n - Offic e o f th e Secretar

y - Offic e o f

Dru g an d Alcoho l Polic y an dComplianc e ha s re-issue danothe r publication , fromAugus t

o f 200 9 whic h make s i t

ciaten t fo r this situation , calle d**Wha t employer s nee dt o kno w abou t DO T Dru g an dAlcoho l Testin g [Guidanc e an dBes t Practices] " O n pag e 1 7 i n that

bookle t under th e headin g o f

Random . Th e sevait h (7**

^ paragrap h fromth e to p States : *^Employer s an dC/TPA s subjec t t o mor e tha n on e DO T Agenc y dru g an dalcoho l testin g rul e ma y combin e covere dDO T safety-sensitiv e employee s int o asingl e rando mpciol (fo r

example , trai n engineer s an dtruc k driver^}.' '

# COP Y

Wha t i s th e purpose , or

th e intent i f yo u will , o f

th e regulatio n requirin g Rando mDru g an dAlcoho l testing ? Althoug h no t

state ddirectl y anywhere but allude dt o many times, th e regulation i s i n plac e t o "deter

dru g an dalcoho l us e b y safety-sensitiv e employee s i n th e wor k place" . Th e real "deterren t

factor " i s no t

havin g dua

l dru g testin g program s bu t rathe r havin g th e safety-sensitiv e employe e understan dtha t regardles s o f

pas t testin g that

employe e i s eligibl e fo r arando mselectio n a

t an y time . I n th e pamphle t

Bes t Practice s fo

r DO T Rando mDru g an dAlcoho l Testin g (mentione dabove ) o n pag e 3 unde r sectio n £ . "Ho w ofite n shoul dselection s an dtest s tak e place?* * i t states : "Wha t

make s rando mtestin g s o effectiv e i s th e elemen t o f surprise. " 1 hav e take n th e libert

y o f breakin g dow n asmall portio n o f th e Ne w Regulatio n 1 4 CF R Par t 120 fo r eas e o f exploration . Th e new regulatio n 1 4 CFRPar t 120.11 7 (d ) (3 ) {formerl

y 1 4 CF R12 1 Appendix ! (IX)(d ) (3) ) i s quote dbelow . 1 4 CF RPar t

120.11 7 States : "Implemaitin g adru g testin g program. " Sectio n (d ) States : ^'Obtainin g a n Antidru g an dAlcoho l Misus e Preventio n Progra m Operation s Specification. " Sub-Sectio n (3 ) States : "Yo u ar e require dt o obtai n onl y on e Antidru g an dAlcoho l Misus e Preventio n Progra mOperation s Specificatio n t o satisf y thi s requiremen t unde r thi s part* * Wes t Ben dAi r ha s maintaine dasaf

e dru g an dalcoho l free operatio n sinc e it s inceptio n som e 2 0 year s ag o an dha s n o intentio n o f lettin g u p o n it s vigilance . Wit h thi s petitio n Wes t

BendAi r respectftilly request s a

n exemptio n fromcarryin g a secon dRando mDru g an dAlcoho l Testin g Program . Wes t Ben dAi r woul dprefer

utilizin g thi s entire reques t a s asummar

y shoul di t

b e necessar y t o plac e somethin g i n th e Federa l Registry . Thank yo u fo r your considerations .

'^es t Ben dAi r Inc . Joh n M . Morri s Directo r o f Operation s