PiASS 

JAARS, Inc. 

Anti-Drug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program 

P.O. Box 248 

Waxhaw.NC 28173 

July 1,2010 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

J^ashinstflnuDCUgggtU.^ 

Human Resources Department 

Dale A. Woods (DER) 

Phone:(704)843-6150 

FAX: (704) 843-6400 

E-Mail: dale woods(S)jaars.org 

To Whom It May Concern: 

This letter is to request a renewal of a two-year exemption that was granted in November, 2008 to allow 

JAARS, Inc., to operate one Drug and Alcohol Testing Program instead of two or three as the regulations 

required in 2008. The waiver document I refer to is Exemption No. 9782, Regulatory Docket No. 

FAA2008-0710. This exemption expires November 30,2010 unless superseded or rescinded. 

Since this exemption was granted, there was a revision of 14 CFR to place Part 121, Appendices I and J 

into 14 CFR §120.117(b) and § 120.225(b), but the content is similar. Furthermore, the "Guidance Alert" 

related to "FAA Regulations Affecting Multiple Certificate Holders or Locations" was also revised 

slightly and now reads in part as follows: 

"... 14 CFR §120.117(b) and §120.225(b), state that a part 119 air carrier authorized to operate under part 

121 or 135, an air tour operator defined in part91.147,... who opts to have an FAA-mandated drug and 

alcohol testing program must meet the requirements of this subpart. As a result of the regulations, 

employers must understand that having multiple programs requires each operator to implement a separate 

testing program, each with their own designated employer representative, separate pre-employment drug 

testing results, drug and alcohol records check, random pool, training, etc." 

JAARS has a Part 135 and a Part 91.147 program, as well as an A3 Part 145 Repair Station which 

operates under the Part 135 certificate. For reasons outlined below 1 seek a renewal of the exemption 

granted in November, 2008 which allows JAARS, Inc., to operate one Drug and Alcohol Testing Program 

instead of two-or thre««s the guidance alert requires. If possible I would like to be granted a.pfianane|it 

exemption instead of a renewal only. 

My reasons for seeking a renewal of this exemption are as follows: 

JAARS has operated under the exemption for the past year and one-half without any adverse effect due to 

the exemption. We have not incurred a positive resuk on any drug or alcohol test during that time. 

Furthermore, an inspection of our program in the summer of 2009 did not turn up any problems with 

operating under this exemption. In fact, our organization was verbally commended for its excellence of 

compliance with regulations. 

The exemption that I am asking for would not have any effect on public safety, either positively or 

negatively. Nor would granting the exemption benefit the public as a whole. It would enable JAARS to 

avoid asking for money to help pay for the expenses caused by compliance to the regulation, and in that 

sense an exemption would benefit the public served by our organization. I am not aware of how 

compliance to the current regulation benefits the public at large, so I do not know how an exemption 

would adversely affect the public at large. 
I am not asking for a change to the regulation and subsequent publishing in the Federal Register. I seek 

only an exemption to the regulation because of our unique situation, which is explained in detail below. 

JAARS, Inc., has three groups required to be in the FAA Drug and Alcohol Testing Program: 

• A Part 91.147 group, which makes use of pilots who also fly under the Part 135 group. 

• An A-3 Part 145 Repair Station group which services the planes used by both the Part 91.147 

group and the Part 135 group. Some of the mechanics in the Repair Station group are also pilots. 

• A Part 135 group which includes all the pilots who fly under the Part 91.147 and the Part 135 

groups. All of the mechanics and pilot/mechanics who work in our A3 Part 145 Repair Station are 

also covered under the Part 135 program which contracts the services of our Part 145 Repair 

Station. Currently there are a total of 64 workers on the safety-sensitive list for this organization. 

The organizational set-up that I have described for our Aviation Department enables JAARS, Inc., to 

fulfill its primary mission, which is to provide transportation support for individuals and families involved 

in1Jffgl3tSrtcTaaP[d Ifteraey^W^ world. Our pilots and mechanics^ither have been or 

will be assigned to serve as "Jungle Aviators" in hard to get to places in Africa, Southeast Asia, or interior 

regions of South America. Regardless of whether they currently work in the USA as Part 135 pilots or as 

Part 91.147 pilots, they also need to be qualified to repair their own planes if necessary. This is why the 

repair station is an integral part of our operation and why there is so much overlap in responsibilities. 

If maintaining confidentiality is the primary or only rationale for having separate DERs and 

recordkeeping systems, having two DERs at JAARS fails to accomplish that purpose. Because of the 

uniqueness of our situation, maintaining confidentiality between our required programs is virtually 

impossible, except for pre-employment testing. If JAARS were operating separate testing programs, there 

would be only six safety-sensitive workers currently involved in the Part 91.147 operation. And all six of 

these are available to fly under the Part 135 certificate as needed. If one of these six workers incurred a 

violation related to any other test taken, both DERs would have to be aware of the problem since the 

worker would have to be removed from the Part 135 safety-sensitive list as well. Therefore, both DERs 

would need to be informed and have duplicate documentation in the event of a refusal, a positive test, or 

other violation, regardless of which program the employee was working under at the time of the violation. 

Such effort is clearly redundant. 

Moreover, the regulation as stated in the guidance alert imposes a financial hardship on the organization. 

As a non-profit organization, JAARS attempts to reduce expenses by operating an internal drug and 

alcohol testing program, making use of a C/TPA only for processing test results from the lab. Having two 

DERs would actually increase expenses because of the need for providing office space and equipment for 

'Si second DER, along with the ^pense of initial and recttrrent training. To fiuther control ^^«nses, a 

JAARS DER is an unpaid volimteer and who can make a long-term commitment. But as you know, there 

is a huge learning curve for someone who is willing to do the DER job. Consequently, it is not easy to 

recruit a person who needs to learn so much, and even more difficult if that person is being recruited to 

handle a program with only six pilots involved. Such is the case at JAARS when a second DER is 

required. 

I have included below a copy of the Exemption No. 9782 that was granted in November, 2008. As a 

matter of record of compliance, JAARS in fact complied with the "Conditions and Limitations" 

imposed as a condition of exemption. JAARS will continue to do that if this petition is granted. 

SincersrfAy, i ] 

Dale Woods, Designated Employer Representative 

JAARS Anti-drug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program 
Exemption No. 9782 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

JAARS, INC. 

^ r mi cx«nptieft#«»part t24 

appendices I and J 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0710 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated July 7, 2008, Mr. Dale Woods, JAARS Designated Employer Representative, JAARS, 

Inc. (JAARS), P.O. Box 248, Waxhaw, NC, 28173 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of JAARS 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 JAARS 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 

drugs 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. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

JAARS 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 

(JAARS) and part 91 air tour operation under the same name. JAARS has six pilots 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. JAARS contends that the requirement to 

implement duplicative programs is a financial hardship to a company its size. In addition to the 

six pilots, JAARS' part 91 air tour operation's drug and alcohol testing program also includes an 

additional 65 safety-sensitive employees which includes pilots and mechanics. JAARS' 

designated employee representative (DER) claims that he can adequately manage all personnel 

under one drug and alcohol testing program and still meet an equivalent level of safety. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register 

publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this 

petition would be detrimental to JAARS. 
The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fiilly 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 the current regulations. 

The FAA's drug and alcohol testing regulations (part 121, appendices I and J) require a part 119 

certificate holder with authority to operate under parts 121 and/or 135, or an operator as defined 

in § 91.147, to implement a drug and alcohol testing program. When a company, such as JAARS, 

conducts both 135 operations and part 91 air tour operations, it is required to implement separate 

and distinct testing programs as if they are individual employers. This means that all the testing 

requirements, such as pre-employment testing, confidentiality of results, DER training programs, 

etc., must be separate. Therefore, the FAA concurs that JAARS requires an exemption from 

appendices I and J of part 121 in order to combine its drug and alcohol testing programs into one. 

JAARS has several pilots that fly forjboth part 135 and part 91 operations. By requiring separate 

drug and alcohol testing programs, these pilots would be subject to duplicate testing. This, in 

turn, increases JAARS' cost of operation. The FAA finds that combining two testing programs 

into one will be in the public interest and maintain a level of safety equivalent to that provided by 

the current regulations. With one program, the pilots will still be subjected to drug and alcohol 

testing in accordance with appendices I and J of part 121. Furthermore, the removal of duplicate 

testing will eliminate an unnecessary financial burden for JAARS. 

The drug and alcohol testing regulations currently permits an employer, who conducts operations 

under separate parts of the 14 CFR, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing 

program. For example, a company who holds part 135 and 145 certificates, can cover its part 145 

safety-sensitive employees under the part 135 drug and alcohol program. Consequently, the FAA 

finds that a company, who wants to cover its part 91 safety-sensitive employees under its part 135 

testing program, can do so with a level of safety that is equal to that which is achieved by the 

aforementioned regulated employer. JAARS' petition to be exempted from the regulatory 

requirements to implement two drug and alcohol testing programs would not adversely affect 

safety. 

The FAA's Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the 

Administrateiv JAARS, Ine., is^^nted an-wcemption from-14^FR part 124, appendices I andJ to the 

extent necessary to permit JAARS which is operating irnder separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of JAARS 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 JAARS 

part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on November 30, 2010, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2008 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon