02/22/201 0 13:5 5 FA X 202483514 2 FA A + DM S @I001/04 1



### BEFOR E TH E UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

C S 

### I n th e matte r

of DM S No . FAA-2009-018 0 PINNACL E AIRLINES , INC . FA A Cas e No . 2007SO95033 1 •••'-C D C D 

### APPEA L FRO M TH E INITIA L DECISIO N O FADMINISTI^TIV E LAW

JUDG E ISAA C D . BENKI N BRIE FO FRESPONDENT-APPELLAN T PINNACL E AIRLINES , INC .

W . Chri s Harriso n (T

N Ba r #018689 ) PINNACLE AIRLINES , INC . I N HOUS E COUNSEL 168 9 Nonconna

h Boulevard , Suit e 11 1 Memphis , Tennesse e 3813 2 Telephone : (901 ) 348-249 4 Attorne y fo

r Respondent-Appellan t Pinnacl e Airlines , Inc .

r..!. q ^ - ^ , 201 0 

## HEARIH G DOCKE T02/22/201 0 13:5 5 FAX 202483514 2 FA A+ DM S @1002/04 1

TABL E O FCONTENT S Tabl e o f Content s i i Tabl e o f Authoritie s i v Statemen t

Regardin g Ora l Argumen t 1 Summar y o f

Specifi c Objection s t o tli e Initia l Decisio n o f th e Administrativ e La w Judg e 2 Statemen t

o f Cas e , .. , 4 Statemen t

o f Fact s 6 Basi s fo r th e Appea l t o th e Administrato r o f th e FA A 1 3 I . Standar do f

Revie w 1 3 II . Judg e Renkin' s Conclusion s o f La w wer e no t

i n Accordanc e wit h Law , Preceden t

an dPubli c Polic y 1 3 A . Judg e Benki n Erre db y no t Considerin g th e Lo w Materia l Ris k t o th e Flyin g Publi c 1 3 1 . Judg e Benki n erre db y failin g t o conside r th e lo w materia l ris k o f har mt o th e flyin g publi c becaus e al l sixtee n groun dsecurit y coordinator s wer e teste dunde r Pinnacle' s non-DO T dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m, , , 1 4 2 . Judg e Benki n erre di n a.ssessin g amaxiumu mcivi l penalt y fo r Jerem y Heinbac h despit e alo w materia l ris k t o th e flyin g publi c 2 0 3 . Judg e Benki n erre di n assessin g amaxiumu mcivi l penalt y fo r Michae l Sampso n despit e alo w materia l ris k t o th e flying publi c 2 102/22/201 0 13;5 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0003/04 1

B . Judg e Benki n Erre db y Findin g tha t Pinnacle' s Remedia l Action s di d no t Substantiat e aLowe r

Civi l Penalt y 2 2 C

- Judg e Benki n Erre din Findin g aMaximu mViolatio n Regardin g Ada mStewar t

ba.sc dan amer e Paperwor k Erro r 2 5 D . Judg e Benki n Erre di n Assessin g aCivi l Penalt y Unde r aCivi l Penalt y Statut e whic h th e FA A di dno t Asser t 2 8 III . Judg e Benki n Committe dPrejudicia l Erro r whe n h e Relie do n Informatio n Outsid e o f

th e Recor dfo r

hi s Decisio n 2 9 A . Judg e Benki n En-e db y Relyin g o n Infoimatio n Abou t Pinnacle' s Siz e tha t wa s Outsid e o f

th e Recor d2 9 B . Judg e Benki n Erre db y Relyin g o n Informatio n Outsid e o f th e Recor d Regardin g Perceive dEas e o f Pinnacle' s Remedia l Action s 3 1 IV . Judg e Benki n Erre db y Relyin g o n Prio r Violation s tha t

wer e no t Supporte d b y aPreponderanc e o f

Reliable , Substantia l o r Probativ e Evidenc e 3 2 Conclusio n an dRelie f

Requeste d3 5 Certificat e o f

Servic e 3 6

i n02/22/201 0 13:5 6 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @I004/04 1



### TABL E O FAUTHORITIE S Case s Administrato r

Decisions : I n th e Matte r

o f Easter n Air

Center , FAA Orde r

No . 2008-3 , 200 8 W

L 34538 6 (Jan . 28 , 2008 ) 27 , 29 , 3 0 I n th e Matte r

o f Northwes t

Airlines , FA

A Order No . 90-37 , 199 0 W

L 65627 8 (Nov . 7 , 1990 ) 1 4 I n th e Matte r

ofStehhin s Aviation , Inc. , FAA Order No . 2006-3,200 6 W

L 46537 3 (Feb . 7 , 2006 ) 17 , 1 8 I n th e Matte r

ofWestai r

Commute

r Airlines , Inc. , TA

A Order No . 93-18 , 199 3 W

L 83310 2 (Jun e 10 , 1993 ) 2 3 Administrativ e La w Judg e Decisions : FA A V . Husk y Corp. , DM S No . FAA-2007-0120 , 200 8 W L 491117 5 (Oct . 31 , 2008 ) 2 4 I n th e Matte r

o f Mole-Maste r

Service s Corp. , DM S No . FAA-2()08-0691 , 200 9 W L 34818 1 (Feb . 10 , 2009 ) 2 4 Statute s 4 9 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1 ) 3 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5)(A ) 4 , 28 , 2 9 Administrativ e Material s 1 4 CF.R . Par

t 13,16(n ) 33 , 3 4 14C.F.R.Partl3.16(n)(iii ) 3 3 1 4 CF.R . Par

t 121 , Appendi x 1 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 20 , 2 5 1 4 CF.R . Part

121 , Appendi x I(V)(A)(3 ) 1 5

I V02/22/201 0 13:5 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •* • DM S 0005/04 1



### 1 4 CF.R . Part

121 , Appendi x J 6, 7 1 4 CF.R . § 13.224(a) 3 2 1 4 CF.R . § 13.23 0 3 0 1 4 CF.R . § 13.23 3 5 , 3 0 1 4 CF.R . § 13.233(b ) 1 3 1 4 CF.R . § 13.233(b)(1 ) 1 3 1 4 CF.R . § 13.233(b)(2 ) 1 3 1 4 CF.R . § 13.233(b)(3 ) 1 3 4 9 CF.R . § 1544.22 9 2 602/22/201 0 13:5 6 FA X 202493514 2 FAA + DM S 0006/04 1

STA I EMEN T REGARDIN G ORA L ARGUMEN T Respondent-Appellan t

Pinnacl e Airlines , Inc . (hereinafte r "Pinnacle" ) hereb y respectfull y request s oral argumen t o f th e issue s presente di n tlii s appeal .02/22/201 0 13:5 6 FA X 202493514 2 FAA + DM S 0007/04 1

SUMMAR Y O FSPECIFI C OBJECTION S T O TH E INITIA L DECISIO N

O FTH E ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E 1 . Th e Administrativ e La w Judge' s Initia l Decisio n faile dt o properl y accoun t fo r th e lo w materia l ris k

t o th e flyin g public , a s require db y la w an dagenc y regulations , despit e apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidenc e i n th e recor dtha t prove dPinnacle' s inadverten t error s create da lo w risk . 2 . Th e Administrativ e La w Judge' s Initia l Decisio n faile dt o properl y accoun t fo r Pinnacle' s comprehensiv e remedia l actions , a s require db y la w an d agenc y regulations , despit e reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidenc e i n th e recor dshowe dtha t

Pinnacl e too k

actio n t o preven t

future violations . 3 . Th e Administrativ e La w Judge' s Initia l Decisio n reache da n incoirec t conclusio n o f

la w b y finding aviolatio n regardin g Ada mStewar t base d solel y o n apaperwor k

error . 4 . Th e Administrativ e La w Judge' s Initia l Decisio n assesse dacivi l penalt y unde r acivi l penalt y statut e whic h th e FA A di dno t asser t i n it s Complain t

o r at an y tim e prio r

t o filing it s Post-Hearin g Repl y Brie f02/22/201 0 13:5 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0008/04 1



### 5 . I3 y applyin g th e maximu mcivi l penalt y assessabl e unde r

4 9 U.S. C § 46301(a)(5)(A ) t o thi s case , despit e th e lac k o f an y evidenc e in recor da s t o Pinnacle' s size , th e Administrativ e La w Judg e relie do n informatio n outsid e o f th e recordt o determin e th e applicabl e civi l penalt y statute . 6 . Th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e relie dupo n informatio n outsid e o f th e record in reachin g hi s conclusion s abou t th e perceive dsimplicit

y o f Pinnacle' s remedia l actions , whic h resulte di

n hi s findin g tha

t Pinnacle' s remedial action s wer e no t

comprehensiv e o r

sincere . 7 . Th e Administrativ e Law Judg e erre dby relyin g o n evidenc e o f prio r violation s that

wa s no t reliable , substantial , o r

probativ e an dfailedt o satisf y th e Agency' s burde n o f

proof .02/22/201 0 13:5 6 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0009/04 1

STATEMEN T O FTH E CAS E Thi s cas e i s t o determin e th e appropriat e amoun t o f th e civi l penalt y assesse dfo r

certai n violation s o f

th e Departmen t

o f Transportation' s dru g an d alcoho l testin g requirements . Pinnacle' s violation s clearl y presente dalo w materia l ris k t o th e flyin g public , an dth e Compan y too k comprehensiv e remedia l actio n t o correc t th e problems . Pinnacl e als o denie s tha t aviolatio n occurre dregardin g Ada mStewart . Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r "FAA" ) ple d4 9 U.S.C . § 4630 1 (a)(5)(A ) i n it s Complain t an dasserte dth e sam e statut e durin g th e hearing . The FA A neve r introduce dan y evidenc e a s t o Pinnacle' s size . Accordin g t o th e evidenc e introduce da t trial , th e appropriat e civi l penalt y shoul dhav e bee n approximatel y $54,000 . Fro mSeptembe r

10-14 , 2007 , th e FA A inspecte dPinnacle' s dni g an d alcoho l testin g programs . Complain t ^ 3 . A t th e conclusio n o f

th e inspection , th e FA A propose da$200,00 0 civi l penalt y agains t Pinnacl e fo r

it s allege dviolation s o f th e dru g an dalcoho l testin g requirement s o f 1 4 C.F.R . Par t

121 , Appendice s I an dJ . Afte r

th e matte r

wa s no t resolve dthroug h th e administrativ e process , includin g an informa l conference , th e partie s proceede dt o ahearin g befor e Administrativ e La w Judg e Isaa c D . Benki n (hereinafte r "Judg e Benkin" ) o n Septembe r

1 an d2 , 200 9 i n Memphis , Tennessee .02/22/201 0 13:5 6 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0010/04 1



### Afte r th e partie s filedPost-Hearin g Brief s an dPost-Hearin g Repl y Briefs , Judg e Benki n issue dhi s Initial Decisio n Assessin g aCivi l Penalt y o f $200,00 0 o n Decembe r 11 , 2009 . Pinnacl e gav e timel y notic e o f appea l t o th e Administrato r

o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n o n Decembe

r 15,2009 . Pinnacl e today perfect s it s Appea

l b y filing thi s Brie f

pursuan t to 1 4 CF.R . § 13.233 .02/22/201 0 13:5 8 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0011/04 1

STATEMEN T O FFACT S Pinnacl e i s aregiona l airlin e providin g schedule dai r transportatio n passenge r

servic e throughou t

th e Unite dState s fo r

Northwes t

Airline s an dDelt a Airlines . Pinnacl e als o provide s groun dservic e suppor t t o Northwes t

Airline s an d Delt aAirlines . Fro mSeptembe r 10-14 , 2007 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n inspecte dPinnacle' s dru g an dalcoho l testin g program . Complain t ^ ] 3 . Afte r

th e conclusio n o f

th e inspection , th e FA A propose da$200,00 0 civi l penalt y agains t Pinnacl e fo r

ninetee n (19 ) allege dviolation s o f th e dru g an dalcoho l testin g requirement s o f

1 4 C.F.R . Par t

121 , Appendice s I an dJ . Afte r th e matte r

wa s no t resolve dthroug h th e administrativ e process , th e partie s proceede dt o ahearin g befor e Judg e Benki n o n Septembe r 1 an d2 , 2009 . Th e evidenc e introduce dat th e hearin g establishe s thre e genera l categorie s o f allege dviolation s b y Pinnacle : 1 . Allege dfailur e t o receiv e verifie dnegativ e Departmen t o f Transportatio n (hereinafte r

"DOT" ) dru g test s pursuan t t o Appendi x I befor e hirin g dispatche r

Jerem y Heinbac h (hereinafte r "Heinbach" ) an dmechani c Ada m Stewar t (hereinafte r

"Stewart") ; 2 . Failur e t o receiv e averifie dnegativ e DO T dru g tes t befor e transferrin g sixtee n (16 ) curren t

groun demployee s int o th e positio n o f groun dsecurit y coordinator s (hereinafte r "GSCs" ) pursuan t

t o Appendi x I ; and .02/22/201 0 13:5 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DMS 0012/04 1

3 , Failur e t o properl y plac e di.spatche r Michae l Sampso n (hereinafte r "Sampson" ) int o th e rando mdru g testin g poo l pursuan t t o Appendi x J . Non e o f Pinnacle' s error s wer e deliberate , no r ha s th e FAA allege dtlia t the y wer e anythin g mor e tha n inadverten t errors . Tran . 195:19-196:1 . Pinnacl e cooperate dfull y wit h th e FA A inspectio n an da s aresul t thereo f too k significan t action s t o preven t

simila r error s fromoccurrin g i n th e future . Mechani c Ada mStewar t Th e FA A faile dt o prov e aviolatio n wit h respec t t o mechani c Stewan . Stewart' s paperwor k

reflecte dahir e dat e o f

Septembe r

29 , 2006 , th e sam e da y Stewar t too k hi s DO T dru g test . Exhibi t A-3 ; Exhibi t

A-13 . Pinnacl e receive dth e verifie dnegativ e DO T dru g tes t result s th e nex t

day , Septembe r

30 , 2006 . Exhibi t A-13 . Stewar t

di dno t star t wor k o r trainin g unti l Octobe r

16 , 2006 . Tran . 222:3

- 7 . Unde r Pinnacle' s policie s i n plac e at th e time , i t

i s highl y improbabl e tha t Stewar t wa s extende dan offer

o f employmen t

o n th e sam e da y h e fille dou t hi s application , becaus e an y offe r o f employmen t

woul dhav e bee n conditiona l upo n hi s passin g acrimina l backgroun dchec k an dDO T dru g test . Iran . 227:9-11 ; 413:7-13 . Stewar t

bega n trainin g an dbega n workin g (an dbein g paid ) week s afte r hi s negativ e result s wer e receive db y Pinnacle , Tran . 224:10-17 ; Exhibi t R-7 , Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . Par t

121 , Appendi x I , "-Hir

e mean s retainin g an individua l02/22/201 0 13:5 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0013/04 1

fo r asafety-sensitiv e ftinction a. v apai demployee , a s avolunteer , o r throug h barte r o r othe r for mo f compensation. " (Emphasi s added) . Accordin g t o th e undispute dtestimon y o f Pinnacle' s Vic e Presiden t o f People, ' Mar y An n Morrow , th e hir e dat e fo r Stewar t wa s actuall y Octobe r

16 , 2006 . Tran . 222:1-8 . Th e Human Resourc e clerk tha t processe dStewart' s paperwor k

incorrectl y entere dahir e dat e o f Septembe r

29 , 2006 . Tran . 221:4-22 . Eve n unde r

th e guidanc e lette r

issue db y Rebecc aMacPherson , Assistan t Chie f Counse l o f

th e FAA, ' thi s timelin e doc s no t establis h aviolatio n becaus e "th e employe r

i s i n th e bes t

positio n t o kno w whethe r th e individua l ha s bee n hired, " a s lon g a s tha t

dat e i s befor e th e individua l ha s begu n training . Exhibi t A

6 , pag e 2 , \2 . Dispatche r

Jerem y Heinbac h Pinnacl e admittedl y hire dHeinbac h o n Jul y 30 , 2007 , thre e day s prio r t o receivin g hi s verifie dnegativ e D O T pre-employmen t dru g tes t results . Exhibi t

A

4 ; Exliibi t

R-Il . However , Heinbac h di dno t begi n wor k

o r trainin g unti l Augus t 14 , 2007 , wel l afte r

Pinnacl e receive dhi s verifie dnegativ e DO T pre-employmen t dru g tes t results . Tran . 459:22 ; 460:14-20 . Despit e th e "literal " violatio n involve d in Heinbach' s case , Heinbac h pose dn o materia l risk t o th e flying publi c o r

th e

' Tli e Peopl e Dcpiirtnien t i s Pinnacle' s equivalen t o f wha i i s tominonl y calle dHuma n Resources

- ^ Pinnacl e dispute s lli c applicatio n an denforceabilit y o f thi s guidanc e letter . Th e guidanc e lette r wa s onl y dislribute dT

O th e Regiona l Airlin e Associatio n an dha s neve r bee n mad e pa n o f

th e regulation s unde r

Appendi x 1 o r J , eithe r in ii.' i entiret y o r

vi aan y chang e in th e languag e o f th e regulations .02/22/201 0 13:5 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 12014/04 1

securit y o f

safety sensitiv e information . Heinbac h ha dn o trainin g i n hi s safety sensitiv e function , no r

di dh e perfor masafet y sensifiv e fiinction, unti l afte r Pinnacl e receive dhi s verifie dnegativ e results . Th e Groun dSecurit y Coordinator s Th e violation s allege db y th e FA A concernin g th e GSC s di dno t constitut e a materia l ris k

t o th e flyin g publi c o r

th e securit y an dsafet y o f th e airlin e industry . Pinnacl e administer s anon-DO T pre-employmen t dru g tes t t o al l ne w employee s tha t d o no t fal l unde r

th e DO T dru g testin g requirements . 'Iran . 242:21-243:6 . Pinnacle' s non-DO T tes t i s designe dt o mirro r

th e DO T test , Tran . 498:4-11 . Pinnacle' s non-DO T rando mtestin g progra mals o test s th e sam e percentag e o f employee s a s ar e require dunde r th e DO T rando mdru g testin g program . Tran . 235:5-8 ; 235:14-21 . Wit h onl y tw o exceptions , th e non-DO T tes t collectio n site s wer e instructe db y Pinnacl e t o follo w th e sam e procedure s an dtes t fo r th e sam e drug s a s th e DO T test . Tran . 518:6-14. ^ Althoug h th e failur e t o administe r th e DO T dru g tes t

i s admittedl y aviolatio n unde r o f th e lette r o f Appendi x I , th e polic y rational e o f

protectin g th e flying publi c wa s largel y me t b y Pinnacle' s non DO T dru g testin g program .

^ I n .som e instance s durin g th e relevan i tim e period . Pinnacle' s non-DO T tes t exceede dth e rcquireincnL s o f the DO T dru g tes t b y testin g fo

r tw o additiona

l substances . Tran . 234:5-9 . Additionally , som e o f th e sample s wer e not

take n usin g a"split " sample , a s th e DO T requires . Tran . 50<5:l-7 ; 508:16-21 . The purpos e o f a"split " sampl e i s t o verif y apo.<iiTiv e dru g tes t

result . Tran . 502:7-14 . However , aspli i sampl e wa s no t necessar y becaus e al l o f

th e employee s a t issu e receive dnegativ e dru g tes t results . Tran . 236:13-22 ; 333:22-334:2 ; 334:18-335:1 .02/22/201 0 13:5 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0015/04 1 

### Dispatche r

Michae l Sampso n Th e violatio n concernin g Sampson' s omissio n fromth e DOT-rando mpoo l wa s th e resul t

o f a n inadvertent

computer error . Tran . 215:20-216:13 . Pinnacl e ha s sinc e implemente dane w Huma n Resource s management

system , Lawson , tha

t wil l preven t

futur e submissio n error s o f

thi s nature . Tran . 216:14-16 ; 219:21

- 220:3 . Becaus e o f

th e inadvertent

nature o f th e violafion an dPinnacle' s remedial step s to correc t

th e issu e wit

h Sampso n an dprevent

futur e submissio n errors , th e violatio n concernin g Sampso n i s amino r violatio n tha

t shoul dnot

resul t in alarg e fine agains t

Pinnacle . Pinnacle' s Remedia l Measure s I n additio n t o th e absenc e o f any material ris k

o f har mt o th e publi c fro

m thes e allege dviolations , Pinnacle' s remedial action s t o ensure futur e complianc e fijrther warran t areductio n i

n an y civi l penalty . Pinnacl e implemente denhance d manage r trainin g o n dru g an dalcoho l testin g requirements . Tran . 248:15-18 . Pinnacl e als o began implementin g it s electroni c trainin g program s durin g th e tim e of th e FA A inspection . Tran . 249:14-17 . Onc e th e onlin e syste mbecam e available . Pinnacl e change dth e forma t o f th e trainin g s o that

manager s coul d acces s th e trainin g material s onlin e a t an y time , withou t

havin g to locate bard-cop y handout s fo

r reference . Tran . 248:21-249:8 ; 250:22-251:3 . Manager s hav e sinc e

1002/22/201 0 13;5 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS I2101G/04 1



### the n commente dpositivel y o n th e convenienc e o f referencin g th e onlin e materials . Tran . 250:22-251:3 . Pinnacl e als o implemente dmore processe s t o verif y tha t al l trainee s fo

r safet y sensitiv e function s hav e passe dth e DO'I " dru g rest . When individual s are selecte dfo

r training , th e trainin g departmen t send s that

lis t t o th e dru g andalcoho l department . Tran . 252:1-5 . Th e dru g an dalcoho l programmanage r ensure s that Pinnacl e ha s receive daverifie dnegativ e pre-employmen t DO T dru g tes t

o n thos e individual s an dlet s th e trainin g departmen t kno w wh o i s eligibl e t o atten dclass . Trail . 252:5-14 , Onc e th e individual s actuall y arriv e fo r their class , th e dru g an d alcoho l programmanage r agai n check s th e actual roster o f thos e presen t

t o b e sure tha t Pinnacl e ha s receive daverifie dnegafiv e pre-employmen t DO T test . Tran . 252:17-21 . I f

Pinnacl e ha s no t

ye t receive daparticula

r employee' s verifie d negativ e dru g tes t

results , h e or

sh e i s sent

hom e andno t

allowe dt o atten dtrainin g unti l th e negativ e resul t

i s received . Tran . 253:2-4 , I n additio n t o thes e specifi c drug-testin g improvements . Pinnacl e upgrade d it s Huma n Resource s technolog y t o allo w fo r better monitorin g o f

dru g tes t result s an dhire dates . Tran . 219:12-220:3 . A t th e tim e o f

th e F/V A inspection . Pinnacl e wa s usin g a

n olde r compute r syste mknow n a s HRizo n to trac k employe e data . Tran . 218:22-219:5 . Shortl y afte r th e inspection . Pinnacl e replace dHRizo n wit h a ne w syste mknow n a s Lawson . Tran . 219:16-18 . Th e primar y differenc e betwee n

1 102/22/201 0 13:5 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 121017/04 1

th e tw o system s i s tha t

Horizo n ha daver y limite dnumbe r o f fields t o trac k employe e data ; whereas , Lawso n contain s abou t 10 0 fields tha t

ca n b e customize d t o sui t Pinnacle' s needs . Tran . 219:6-220:3 . Lawso n give s Pinnacl e th e abilit y t o bette r verif y tha t employee s hav e bee n DO T dru g teste dprio r t o hir e an dsafet y sensitiv e trainin g an dar e properl y place di n th e rando mDO T pool . Tran . 219:21

- 220:3 . I n addition , Pinnacl e implemente dacomprehensiv e two-tiere daudi t syste m t o catc h an dresolv e violation s befor e the y ris e t o asystemi c level . Tran . 247:2-5 . Pinnacle' s thir dpart y administrato r no w audit s th e dru g an dalcoho l progra m quarterl y an dPinnacle' s Safety Departmen t conduct s rando maudit s o n th e dru g an dalcoho l program . Tran . 247:7-16 . Thes e additiona l audit s b y th e thir dpart y administrato r

wer e implemente dwithi n afe w month s o f th e FAA' s inspection . Tran . 247:17-248:5 . Th e Safety Departmen t audit s wer e implemente dearl y th e followin g year . Tran . 248:6-10 . I n assessin g acivi l penalt y o f $200,000 , Judg e Benki n faile dt o adequatel y conside r th e mitigatin g factor s presen t i n thi s case , a s require db y law , precedent , an dpubli c policy . Therefore , Pinnacl e request s tlia t th e civi l penalt y amoun t b e reduce dt o reflec t

th e totalit y o f

th e circumstance s surroundin g thes e allege d violations , includin g Pinnacle' s non-DO T dru g testin g program , th e rea l risk o f har mt o th e flying public , an dPinnacle' s subsequen t remedia l actions . 1 202/22/201 0 13:5 7 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0018/04 1



### BASI S FO RAPPEA L T O TH E ADMINISTRATO RO FTH E FA A I . STANDAR D O FREVIEW . Pursuant t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(b) , there are thre e standard s o f revie w o f a n Initial Decisio n issue db y a n Administrativ e La

w Judge , dependin g o n whethe r finding s o f

fact , conclusion s o f

law , or prejudicial error s ar

e implicated . Fo r findings o f

fact , th e FA

A dccisiormiake

r determine s onl y whether

th e Administrativ e La

w Judge' s findings are supporte db y apreponderanc e o f

reliable , probative , an dsubstantial evidence , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(b)(1) . For conclusion s o f law , th e FA A decisionmaker determine s whether

they wer e mad e i n accordanc e wit h law , precedent , an dpubli c policy . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(b)(2) . Finally , th e FA A decisionmake r

determine s whether

th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e committe d an y prejudicial errors . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(b)(3) , II . JUDG E BENKIN' S CONCLUSION S O FLA W WER E NO T IN ACCORDANC E WIT H LAW . PRECEDENT . AND PUBLI C POLICY . A . Judg e Benki n Erre db y no t Considerin g th e Lo w Materia l Ris k t o th e Flyin g Public . Th e FAA' s internal guideline s requir e th e agenc y t o conside r th e ris k o f har mpose db

y th e violation(s ) i

n assessin g andproposin g acivi l penalty . FAA Order 2150.3A , p . 2 (requirin g th e FA A t o conside r

th e "significanc e i

n degre e o f hazardt o th e safet y o f other aircraft , person s or

propert y i n th e aircraf

t o r o n th e ground , create db

y th e allege dviolation") . Althoug h th e AL J i s no t boun dby th e

1 302/22/201 0 13:5 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 1^019/04 1

F/VA' s interna l regulations , failur e t o asses s apenalt y consisten t wit h the mi s reversibl e error . Se e I n Th e Matte r o f Northwes t

Airlines , FA A Orde r

No . 90-37 , 199 0 W L 656278 , a t

*8-1 0 (Nov . 7 , 1990) , I . Judg e Benki n erre db y failin g t o conside r th e lo w materia l ris k o f har mt o th e flyin g publi c becaus e al l sixtee n Groun dSecurit y Coordinator s wer e teste dunde r Pinnacle' s non-DO T drui J an d alcoho l testin g program . B y apreponderanc e o f

unconteste devidence . Pinnacl e prove dtha t i t ha s i n plac e anon-DO T dru g testin g program , tha t al l sixtee n o f

th e GSC s a t

issu e wer e teste dwithi n tha t

non-DO T dru g testin g progra mprio r t o trainin g i n asafety

sensitiv e position , an dtha t th e non-DO T dni g testin g progra mi n plac e a t Pinnacl e substantiall y reduce dth e ris k o f adru g use r

servin g i n asafet y sensitiv e function . Th e reason s give n b y Judg e Benki n fo r hi s failur e t o conside r

Pinnacle' s non-DO T tes t

result s focu s o n th e difference s betwee n th e DO T an dnon-DO T dru g testin g program s an dhi s fea r tha t Pinnacl e view s it s non-DO T progra ma s a replacemen t

o f th e DO T program . Initia l Decisio n a t 5-6 , Pinnacl e absolutel y doe s no t conten dtha t

th e non-DO T progra mserve s a s asufficien t replacemen t

fo r th e DO T program , an dha s neve r s o muc h a s implie dsuc h a n argument . Further , th e difference s betwee n th e test s identifie db y Judg e Benki n ar e no t relevan t t o th e

1 402/22/201 0 13:5 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 121020/04 1

substantiall y lowe r

ris k tha t adru g use r

wil l seiv e i n asafety-sensitiv e flmctio n tha t th e non-DO T dru g testin g progra mprovides." * A s apolic y matter , th e deterren t effect s o f

th e DO T dru g testin g progra m wer e largel y satisfie dby Pinnacle' s non-DO T dru g testin g program . Onc e an employe r receive s averifie dnegativ e pre-employmen t DO T dru g tes t

result , tha t employe e i s neve r

agai n subjec t

t o aschedule dDO T dru g tes t an di s instea donl y subjecte dt o DO T rando mdru g tests . Iran , 50:15-2 1 (admissio n b y counse l for th e FA A tha t th e pre-employmen t

tes t i s " aone-tim e requirement " an di s the n i n " a DOT-require drando mdru g an dalcoho l testin g progra mfor thei r ongoin g testing") . Th e GSC s al l ha dreceive dnegativ e result s fro mth e non-DO T dru g tes t {Se e Exhibit s R-1 7 t o R-34 , R-36 , an dR-3 8 t o R-4I ) an dwer e subjec t t o rando m dru g testin g a t

th e sam e rat e a s Pinnacle' s DO' f employees . Tran . 235:5-2 1 (o n a percentag e basis , Pinnacl e randoml y dru g test s th e sam e amoun t o f employee s unde r bot h th e DO T an dnon-DO T dru g testin g programs) . Appendi x T contain s on e excepfio n i n whic h an employe e woul db e subjec t t o anothe r

DO T dru g tes t

othe r tha n th e rando mprogram . I f th e employe e i s no t transferre dt o asafety sensifiv e functio n withi n 18 0 day s o f th e verifie dnegativ e DO T dru g tes t

resul t h e o r sh e shoul db e rctested . 1 4 C.F.R . Par t 12 1 App x I

' Complainant' s Post-Hcarin g Brie f a i 1 6 reference s Viryni aLozada' s testimony abou t FA A audit s o f

collectio n facilitie s anddiflcrence s sh e allegedl y observed . Thes e comparison s arc irrelevant t o Pinnacle' s program.in

d^yer e th e subjec t

o f asmlainc dobieciio n fo

r ifrelevance , Lozad adi dno t observ e collectio n procedure s fo r Pinnacl e and testimony regardin g other

eompanys ' program s wit

h agiven contracto r

i s completel y irrelevant . Indeed , Lozai a ma y hav e oh.'serve

dnon-aviatio n dru g icsis , but he r testimony di dnot

establis h th e foundatio n fo r he r speculation . 1 502/22/201 0 13:5 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DMS 0021/04 1

(V)(A)(3) . Th

e reaso n behin dthi s re-testin g requiremen t i s tha t th e individual s ar e no t "brough t unde r a n FA A drug-testin g program " unti l the y ar e transferre dt o safety-sensitiv e functions . 14C.F.R . Par t 12 1 App x I (V)(A)(3) . Afte r averifie d negafiv e pre-employmen t DO T dru g test , th e onl y elemen t o f th e DO T dru g testin g progra mtha t

continue s t o ensur e dru g user s ar e no t servin g i n safety-sensitiv e position s i s th e rando mdru g testin g requirement . Iran . 50:15-21 . Th e GSC s wer e subjec t t o rando mdrug-testin g unde r Pinnacle' s non-DO T progra ma t th e sam e percentag e a s DOT-teste demployees , Tran . 235:5-8 ; 235:14-21 . Therefore , the y wer e subjec t

t o th e sam e accountabilit y an ddeterren t effect s a s th e DO T progra m woul dhav e produced . Judg e Benki n als o foun dtha t ther e wer e materia l difference s betwee n Pinnacle' s non-DO T dru g test s an dth e DO T program . Initia l Decisio n a t 5 , Althoug h difference s d o exist , thos e difference s d o no t alte r th e dramaficall y decrease drisk

tha t adru g use r

wil l b e employe di n asafet y sensitiv e function . Th e FA A pointe dou t

tha t Pinnacle' s non-DO T dru g test s i n som e instance s di dno t includ e aspli t

sample . Tran . 506:1-7 ; 508:16-21 . Th e spli t sampl e i s use dt o verif y apositiv e dru g tes t

resul t an dca n serv e a s aprocedura l safeguar dt o ensur e tha t th e employe e i s no t

denie demploymen t

withou t doubl y verifyin g apositiv e result . Tran . 502:7-14 . However , failur e t o us e aspli t sampl e i n tlii s cas e di dno t i n an y wa y increas e th e ris k t o th e flyin g publi c becaus e al l sixtee n GSC s receive d

1 602/22/201 0 13:5 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @1022/04 1 

### negativ e tes t

results . A s aresult , th e GSC s pose dasignificantl y decrease drisk t o th e safet y an dsecurit

y o f Pimiacle' s customer s compare dt o employee s with n o previou s dru g screening . Judg e Benki n als o note dthat Pinnacle' s non-DO T progra mi n som e instance s teste dfo

r tw o additional substance s tha n th e DO T programallows . Initial Decisio n a

t 5 . Durin g th e hearin g o n thi s matter , counse l fo r th e FA A asserte dthat

th e Administrato r

ha s rule dtha

t testin g fo r additional drug s under

th e auspice s o f

aDO T dru g testin g progra mi s unacceptable . Tran . 389:22-390:5 . Th e cas e th e FAA' s counse l propose dstoo dfo r that proposition , I n th e Matte r o f Stebbin s Aviation , Inc. , FAA Order No . 2006-3 , 200 6 W

L 46537 3 (Feb . 7 , 2006) , i s inapplicabl e t o thi s case . I n Stebbins , th e carrie r faile dt o implemen t

it s FAA

approve dDO T dru g testin g progra man dfaile dentirel y t o establis h a n alcoho l program . I da

t *3 . Stebbin s als o asserte dthat it coul dno t findit s dru g testin g record s fo r th e entir e yea

r o f 1997 , bu t that it ha daccomplishe dal l require dtestin g fo r that year . Stebbins , FA

A Order No . 2006-3 , a

t *2. Th e FAA additionall y allege daviolatio n o f

th e regulation s becaus e i

t asserte dtha

t th e carrie r

teste dfo r more than th e permitte dsubstance s i n on e DO T pre-employmen t tes t an drando m dru g test s an dse t

"impermissibl y restrictive " limit s i n rando mdru g tests . Id . Th e Administrato r

state donly tha

t th e carrier' s assertio n tha t th e FA A approve do f

it s

1 702/22/201 0 13:5 8 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS @j023/04 1



### more stringen t

dru g testin g wa s unsupporte dandtha t th e AL J di dno t wcigli heavil y tha t

particula r violatio n i

n determinin g th e sanction . Id . a t *4 . Pinnacl e doe s no t

asser t that th e FAA approve dit s non-DO T dru g testing , no r tha t th e non-DO T programi n any wa y shoul dreplac e th e DO T program . Th e mos t importan t

distinctio n betwee n Pinnacl e andStebbin s i s that Pinnacle' s testin g fo r additional drug s wa s no t

don e under

th e auspice s o f

aDO T dru g testin g program . Stebbins , FA

A Order No . 2006-3 , a

t *6 . In Stebbins , th e Administrato r explaine dthat

Fourt h Amendment

and"othe r

concerns " mad e i

t "inadvisabl e t o permi t employer s t o tes t

the DO T sampl e fo

r additional drugs " "thoug h a n employer coul dtes t fo r additiona l drug s usin g asecond , separate sample. " Id . a t *6 , n.l2 . Becaus e Pinnacle' s non-DO T tes t wa s aseparate , distinct , non-DO T sampl e that

wa s no t areplacement

o f th e DO T tes t

but merel y mitigate dth e ris k involve di n thi s case , Stebbin s doe s no t control . Therefore , th e FAA' s argumen t on thi s point

i s wholl y withou t

merit . Ih e remainder

o f th e distinction s between Pinnacle' s non-DO T tes t an dth e DO T tes t fai l t o rebu t th e mitigatio n valu e o f

th e non-DO T dru g testin g progra mi n thi s case . Th e FA

A assert s tha

t th e level s a

t whic h th e dmg s were teste darc no t indicate di

n Pinnacle' s non-DO T progra man dtherefore ma

y no t b e th e same , that th e Ivlcdica

l Revie w Office

r (hereinafter

"MRO" ) doe s no t

certif y th e tes t a s "conducte din accordanc e wit h 4 9 CR FPar t 40, " (Tran . 563:3-7 ) an

dthat Pinnacl e 1 802/22/201 0 13:5 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •> • DM S 12024/04 1



### doe s no t kno w absolutel y tha

t al l o f it s request s t o it s thirdpart y adjninistrators , MROs , an dcollectio n site s are bein g followed . See , e.g. , Tran . 551:18-552:17 ; 553:2-12 , First , Pinnacl e ha s modele dit s non-DO T dru g testin g programafte r th e DO T progra

mandrequeste dth e level s b e se t a t th e DOT require dlevels . Tran . 391:22-392:17 . Second , there i s n o reaso n or requirement

fo r a n MR O to certif

y a non-DO T tes t

a s complian t

wit h DO T regulations , an ddoin g s o ma y i n fact pu t th e MR O i n violatio n o f

th e FAA' s regulation s becaus e th e D O I " collectio n for

mi s differen t fro mth e non-DO T form , Tran . 571:17-18 . Certifyin g ates t conducte d o n anon-DO T for

ma s DOT compliant

woul db e aviolatio n becaus e simply usin g th e differen

t for mmake s th e tes t

non-DO T compliant . Tran . 571:17-18 . Pinnacl e request s it s collectio n sites , MRO s an dthir dpart y administrator s fo

r th e non-D O f progra mmime th e DO T scheme a s closel y a s possibl e andconduct s audit s t o ensure it s wishe s i n till s are aar e fulfilled . Tran . 400:19-401:3 . In addition , Pinnacl e use s th e same collectio n sites , tes t centers , an

dMRO s a s Pinnacle' s paralle l DO T dru g testin g progra m(Tran . 230:14-19 ; 233:16-17) , whic h ensure s tha t th e site s actuall y kno w th e proper procedures . Pinnacle' s decisio n t o establi.sh acompletel y drug-fire

e workplac e (Tran . 431:2-6 ) andt o dru g tes t all employee s shoul dno t b e completel y ignore di

n assessin g th e risk

involve dwit

h th e GSC s a

t issu e here , an dJudg e Benkin' s failur e t o consider

th e non-DO T dru g test s a s mitigatin g i s withou t

basi s i n law or

policy . 1 902/22/201 0 13:5 8 FA X 202493514 2 FAA + DM S 0025/04 1

2 . Judg e Benki n erre di n assessin g th e maximu mcivi l penalt v fo r Jerem y Heinbac h despit e alo w materia l ris k t o th e flvin2 public . Wit h respec t

t o I leinbach . Pinnacl e ha s als o show n alo w materia l risk o f har mt o th e flying public . Pinnacl e admit s tha t i t hire dHeinbac h prio r

t o receivin g hi s negativ e DO T dru g tes t results ; however , Heinbac h di dno t begi n wor k

o r trainin g unti l approximatel y tw o week s afte r Pinnacl e receive dhi s verifie d negativ e DO T pre-employmen t dru g tes t results . Tran . 459:20-22 . Wliil e Pinnacl e recognize s tha t

thi s i s aviolation , i t

shoul dno t

b e considere da"maximum " violatio n becaus e o f

tli c lo w materia l risk

involved . Althoug h aviolatio n o f

Appendi x I , Heinbach' s situatio n pose dn o materia l ris k t o airlin e safety an dPinnacl e stil l complie dwit h th e essentia l purpos e o f th e regulation . Pinnacl e admit s tha t Heinbac h wa s hire do n Jul y 30 , 2007 . Pinnacl e receive dHeinbach' s verifie dnegativ e DO T dru g tes t result s o n Augus t

2 , 2007 . Exhibi t R-11 . H e bega n compan y indoctrinatio n trainin g o n Augus t 14 , 2007 . Tran . 459:20-22 . Th e lette r t o th e Regiona l Airlin e Associatio n fro mRebecc a MacPherso n state s tha t

th e creatio n o f

traine e position s t o circumven t th e prior-to

hir e dru g testin g requiremen t wa s inadequat e becaus e trainee s wer e stil l expose dt o safety sensitiv e information . Exhibi t A-6 , p . 2 , ^ 2 . Becau.s e Heinbac h di dno t receiv e an y safet y sensitiv e informatio n befor e Pinnacl e receive dhi s verifie d negativ e pre-employmen t dru g test , Heinbac h pose dn o materia l ris k t o aviatio n 2 002/22/201 0 13:5 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0028/04 1



### safet y an dth e purpos e o f

th e prior-to-hire requiremen t wa s stil l fiilfilled . Consequentiy , Pinnacl e shoul dno t b e assesse dth e maximumpenalt y fo r thi s violation . 3 . Judg e Benki n erre di n assessin g th e maximu mcivi l penaltv fo r Michael Sampso n despite alo w materia l risk t o th e flying public . Sampson' s omissio n fi-omth e DOT rando mtestin g poo l als o pose dalo w material ris k

t o th e flying public . He wa s properl y pre-employmen t teste dand , becaus e hi s omissio n wa s th e resul t o f a n inadverten t

computer error , ther e wa s n o wa y h e coul dhav e know n he wa s no t subjec t t o rando mdru g tests . A s aresult , th e deterren t effect s identifie db

y Am y Franke l a s th e reason s fo r rando mdru g testin g wer e stil l largel y satisfied . Sampson' s omissio n fro

mth e rando mdru g testin g poo l wa s i n error , bu t th e actua l risk o f har massociate dwit

h th e risk wa s minimal . Sampso n wa s properl y administere dth e pre-employment DOT dru g test . Despite bein g properl y classifie dan dentere dinto th e syste mb y Pinnacle , h e wa s inadvertentl y no t properl y transmitte dt o th e thirdpart y administrato r

b y th e huma

n resource s softwar e Pinnacl e use da

t th e time. Tran . 216:8-10 . Becaus e th e omissio n wa s th e resul t o f acomputer

error , Michae l Sampso n coul dno t possibl y hav e know n that h e wa s omitte dfro

mth e rando mpoo l andtherefore th e deterren t effect s o f

2 102/22/201 0 13:5 8 FA X 202493514 2 FAA * DM S 0027/04 1

knowin g h e wa s i n th e rando mpoo l an do f th e rando mtestin g requiremen t wer e stil l satisfied . B , Judg e Benki n Erre db y Findin g tha t Pinnacle' s Remedia l Action s di dno t Substantiat e aLowe r

Civi l Penalty . Whil e Judg e Benki n acknowledge dPinnacle' s man y remedia l action s t o avoi ddru g testin g violation s i n th e future , h e improperl y dismisse dthe msolel y o n th e basi s o f

Pinnacle' s allege dviolatio n histor y (itsel f base do n unreliable , incomplet e evidence , discusse dbelow) . However , Pinnacl e ha s prove n b y a preponderanc e o f

reliable , probativ e an dsubstantia l evidenc e tha t i t too k comprehensiv e remedia l action s t o correc t th e violation s allege di n thi s cas e (Detaile di n th e Facts , above , a t 10-12) . Th e FAA' s assertions , whic h Judg e Benki n apparentl y ascribe s t o (Initia l Decisio n at 12) , tha t Pinnacle' s violatio n histor y "indicate s tha t

an y correctiv e actio n take n b y Pinnacl e ha s no t bee n effectiv e (Complainant' s Post-Hearin g Brie f a t 26), " ar e unpersuasiv e an d unsupported . Th e inspectio n a t issu e too k

plac e i n 2007 . Complain t ^ 3 . Th e FA A ha s no t

introduce dan y evidenc e t o corroborat e it s speculatio n tha t Pinnacle' s remedia l action s hav e bee n ineffective . Indeed , at tli e time ofth e hearing , Virgini a Lozat atestifie dtha t

Pinnacl e ha s recentl y bee n inspected . Tran . 133:15-134:1 . Ther e i s no t

testimon y tha t

Pinnacl e ha dan y ne w violation s sinc e th e 200 7 inspection . Additionally , Pinnacle' s violatio n histor y show s onl y tha t Pinnacl e ha d ahistor y o f

som e violations ; i t

i s no t probativ e ofth e valu e o f Pinnacle' s action s i n 2 202/22/201 0 13:5 9 FA X 202493514 2 FAA + DM S 0028/04 1

respons e t o th e inspectio n a t issu e her e o r

Pinnacle' s behavio r

goin g forward . Indeed , considerin g allege dprio r violation s a s no t

onl y aggravatin g bu t

als o a s precludin g unrelate dmitigation , a s th e FA A suggests , i s directl y contrar y t o th e Administrator' s state dpolic y tha t sufficien t

correctiv e actio n ca n b e mitigating . I n th e Matte r

ofWestai r

Commute r

Airlines , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 93-18 , 199 3 W L 833102 , a t

* 5 (Jun e 10 , 1993) . Pinnacl e too k

man y steps , som e swif

t an dcomprehensive , an dother s whic h require dlong-ter mimplementation , t o correc t th e issue s reveale db y th e FAA' s inspection . Such action s include dretrainin g manager s o n dru g an dalcoho l testing , redesignin g th e trainin g resource s availabl e t o thos e manager s t o mak e the mmor e accessibl e (Tran . 248:21-249:8) , implementin g atwo-tiere daudi t syste mfo r ensurin g interna l complianc e (Tran . 247:2-248:10) , establishin g ne w procedure s for ensurin g safety-sensitiv e employee s hav e receive dverifie dnegativ e DO T dru g tes t result s prio r

t o trainin g (Tran . 252:1-253:4) , an dimplementin g ane w Huma n Resource s managemen t

syste mtha t

allow s for

bette r trackin g o f

employees ' dru g testing , hire , an dtrainin g dates . Tran , 219:12-15 ; 219:21-220:3 . Judg e Benki n heavil y criticize dPinnacle' s remedia l actions . In hi s decision . Judg e Benki n point s ou t tha t Pinnacl e i s jus t

"takin g th e step s tha t

i t shoul dhav e take n year s ago... " an dPinnacle' s correctiv e action s "merel y represen t acas e o f lockin g th e ba mdoo r

afle r th e hors e ha s bee n stolen. " Initia l Decisio n a t 12 . Thi s 2 302/22/201 0 13:5 9 FA X 202483514 2 FA A * DM S 0029/04 1



### criticis mo f

Pinnacle' s remedia

l action s i s no t

i n accordanc e wit

h applicabl e precedent . "Ther e i s ampl e preceden t fo r reducin g th e amount

o f acivi l penalty to reflec t th e allege dviolator' s investment i n better trainin g fo

r it s employees... " I n th e Matte r

o f Mole-Maste r

Service s Corp. , DM S No , FAA-2008-()69l , 200 9 W L 348181 , a t

* 5 (Feb . 10 , 2009 ) (reducin g th e penalty fi-om$29,10 0 t o $25,00 0 whe n th e defendan t

implemente da"sketchy " trainin g programayear an dseve n month s afte r th e violations) . I

n F ^ v. Husk

y Corp. , FAA 2007- 0 [20 , lOO H WL4911175 , a t * 6 (Oct . 31 , 2008) , Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar

dC , Goodwi n rule dtha

t "swif t actio n designe dto better

ensure futur

e complianc e may warran t asignifican t reductio n i n civi l penalty. " I n that case . Judg e Goodwi n hel dthat requirin g employee s t o underg o hazardou s material s trainin g followin g a n investigatio n b y th e FA A tha t prove dHusk

y hadtransporte dhazardou s material s withou t followin g th e requisit e safeguard s wa s asufficien t remedial action . Id . A s aresult , acivi l penalt y o f $8,00 0 wa s assesse dagains t Husk y a s oppose dt o th e $1.5,000 sought . I d Pinnacle' s remedial actions , i n th e presen t case , fa r outweig h thos e take n in Husky , I n additio n t o requirin g trainin g fo r it s employees . Pinnacl e als o redesigne d th e trainin g resource s availabl e t o manager s t o make themmore accessibl e (Tran . 248:21-249:8) , establishe dnew procedure s fo r ensurin g safety-sensitiv e employee s hav e receive dverifie dnegativ e DO T dru g tes t result s prio r

t o trainin g (Tran . 252:1

- 2 402/22/201 0 13:5 9 FA X 202493514 2 FAA * DM S 0030/04 1



### 253:4) , implemente datwo-tiere dinternal audi t syste mfo r ensurin g complianc e (Tran . 247:2-248:10) , an dpu t int o operatio n ane w computer progra mt o bette r trac k relevan t dru g testin g data . Consequently , Judg e Bcnkin' s hars h criticis mo f Pinnacle' s remedial effort s wa s unwanante dan dno t in lin e wit

h th e applicabl e precedent . C . Judg e Benki n Erre di n Findin g aMaximu mViolatio n Regardin g Ada mStewar t

Base do n aMer e Paperwor k Error . Unconteste devidenc e establishe s that Pinnacl e receive dStewart' s verifie d negativ e DO T pre-employment dru g tes t result s befor

e Stewar t bega n trainin g o r work . Stewart' s hir e date wa s incorrecti y fisteda s September 29 , 200 6 on Pinnacle' s H

Rpaperwork . Tran . 221:7-22 . Pursuant t o 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 121 , Appendi x I , '""Hir

e mean s retainin g a

n individual fo

r asafety-sensitiv e functio n a s apai demployee , a s avolunteer , o r throug h barte r

o r other for mo f compensation. " (Emphasi s added) . A s Stewar t wa s no t "hired " prio r

t o th e receip t

o f hi s negativ e dru g tes t by Pinnacle , there ha s been n o violatio n ofth e regulation . Evidenc e fro

mth e hearin g clearly demonstrate dtha t Stewar t coul dno t hav e been hire do n September

29,200 6 a s hi s paperwor

k mistakenl y stated . Pinnacle' s Vic e President

o f People , Mai y An n Morrow , explaine dtha t unde r Pinnacle' s policie s in plac e a

t the time , i t

i s highl y improbabl e that

Stewar t wa s extende da

n offe r o f employmen t

on th e same da

y h e filledou t

hi s applicatio n becaus e an y offe r o f employment

woul dhav e been conditional upo n hi s passin g th e requisit e 2 502/22/201 0 13:5 8 FAX 202483514 2 FA A * DMS 0031/04 1 

### backgroun dchec k

andDOT dru g test . Tran . 227:9-11 ; 413:7-13 . Th e FAA' s Virgin aLozot o agree dtha t becaus e th e employer

determine s th e hire date , th e employer shoul dals o b e abl e t o correc t error s i n th e hire date . Tran . 139:6-15 . Judg e Benki n suggeste dthat Pinnacle' s Vic e President of People , Mar

y An n Morrow , wa s not

credibl e becaus e sh e hadn o persona l knowledg e o f

whe n Stewar t wa s hired . Initia

l Decisio n a

t 4 . However , Ms . Morro w i s th e Vic e President ofth e departmen t

i n charg e o f

hirin g andca

n clearl y spea

k t o Pinnacle' s ordinar y busines s practices . Ms . Morro w wa s describin g Pinnacle' s regula r busines s practic e o f

requirin g satisfactor

y completio n o f

adru g tes t

an da backgroun dchec k

a s acontingenc y of

hi s ofTe r o f employment

wit h Pinnacle . I

t i s unrefute dthat

Pinnacl e ha s apolic y o f

conductin g backgroun dcheck s o n individual s prio r

t o hirin g them . Indeed , thi s practic e i s require db y TS A regulation s requirin g abackgroimdchec k prio r t o givin g a n employe e acces s t

o secure area s ofth e airport . Se e 4 9 C.F.R . § 1544.22 9 (detailin g fingerprint base d criminal history record s chec k a s prerequisit e t o unescorte daccess) . Clearly , Pinnacl e doe s no t

dru g tes t ever y potential employe e prio r t o interviewin g them andeve n determinin g whether the y ar e qualifie dcandidates . Such apractic e woul db e costl y andwasteful , andclearl y no t wha t i s contemplate dunde r

th e regulations .

2 602/22/201 0 13:5 8 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0032/04 1 

### Judg e Benkin' s assessment o f Ms . Morrow' s credibilit

y wa s base di n par

t o n what h e viewe da s alack

o f corroboratin g document s regardin g Stewart' s hir e date . Initial Decisio n a

t 4 . Exhibi t

R-7 , Ada mStewart' s timecard , wa s introduce din suppor t o f Ms . Morrow' s testimony . Judg e Benki n dismisse dthi s evidenc e a s no t corroboratin g becaus e h e observe s tha t "a n employe e ma

y be , an dusuall y is , "hired " on adat e befor

e th e employe e receive s hi s or her first pa y check. " Initial Decisio n a

t 4 . However , Ms . Morro w testifie dtha t Pinnacl e considere dStewart' s hire date t o b e October

16t h an ddeterminin g th e hire date i s withi n th e discretio n ofth e airline . Se e Exhibi t A-6 . Stewart' s timecardprove s that h e di dno t

wor k or trai n befor e October 16th ; therefore , Pimiacle' s decisio n t o consider that hi s hire date i s no t inconsisten t

wit h th e regulations . Alternatively , i f

aviolatio n regardin g Stewar t i s found , onl y aminimu m penalt y shoul db e assesse dfo

r that violation . I n th e Matter

o f Easter n Ai r

Center , th e Administrato r

state dtha t "ther e i s n o reaso n t o impos e more tha n aminimu m civi l penalt

y i n case s involvin g apaperwor k discrepanc y when tha t

discrepanc y di d no t affect safety. " FA

A Orde r No . 2008-3 , 200 8 W

L 345386 , a

t * 4 (Jan . 28 , 2008 ) (assessin g the minimumpenalt y fo r flying withou t

th e proper

certification) . In th e present case , Stewar

t pose dn o threat

t o safet y a s h e di dno t

begi n workin g unti l week s afte

r Pinnacl e receive dhi s negativ e DOT-dru g tests . Accordingly , Judg e

2702/22/201 0 13:5 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0033/04 1



### Benki n erre db y finding aviolatio n agains t Pinnacl e base do n amer e paperwor k discrepancy , D . Judg e Benki n Erre di n Assessin g aCivi l Penalt y Unde r aStatut e whic h th e FA

A di dno t Assert . I n hi s Initial Decisio n a

t *4 , Judg e Benki n cite s 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5)(A ) a s th e applicabl e statute , under whic h "Pinnacl e i s liabl e fo r acivi l penalt

y no t t o excee d$25,00 0 fo

r eac h violation, " Thi s i s aclea r erro r o f law . 4 9 Ll.S.C . § 46301(a)(5)(A ) relate s to smal l busines s concern s an dindividuals , an dprovide s a maximumcivi l penalt

y o f $10,000," ^ a s modifie db y 1 4 C.F.R . 13.30 5 t o accoun t fo r inflation. ^ I

n it s Complaint , durin g discovery , at th e hearing , andi n it s Post

Hearin g Brief

, th e FA A continue dt o erroneousl y asser t tha t 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5)(A ) wa s amende dt o increas e th e penalt y t o $25,000 , despit e a complete lac k

o f statutor y suppor t fo r that contention . Th e FA A ha s faile

dt o produc e any evidenc e i n th e recordconcernin g Pinnacle' s siz e fo

r th e cour t t o determin e whether

th e statute cite db y th e FAA i s actuall y appropriate i

n thi s case , Tlierefore , th e maximumcivi l penalt y i n thi s cas e shoul da t mos t b e $11,00 0 per

violatio n pursuan t

to th e statute cite db y th e FAA i n it s Complain t

an dth e statute cite db

y Judg e Benki n i

n hi s Initial Decision . M 9 U.S.C . § 46301(1 ) iiKorporaie s b y referenc e th e definitio n ofsmal l busines s concer n from1 5 U.S.C . § 632. I n accordanc e wit

h 1 5 IJ.SC , § 632 , the sh e standard s fo r smal l busines s concern s are update dannuall y andcurrentl y publishe da

t l.3C.I'.R . § 121.201 , Pinnaclc'. s industr y classilkatio n i s Subscclor481 , "Ai r Transportation.' " Undei " Th e relevan t Nort h America

n Industr y Classificatio n Systemcode , 48111 1 for "Schedule dAi r

Passenger Transportation, " asmal l busine.s. s concer n ma y hav e amaximumo f

1,50 0 employees . * Bringin g th e maximu mpenally pe r violatio n to $11,00 0 pursuant l o 14 C.F.R , 13.305(a)(3) . 2 802/22/201 0 13:5 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DMS I2|034/04 1

Whe n considerin g th e availabl e rang e o f penalties , th e Administrato r shoul d conside r tha t $209,00 0 woul dhav e bee n th e statutor y maximu mth e FA A coul d hav e propose dunde r

it s cite dstatut e i f

al l allege dviolation s wer e tru e an dth e $200,00 0 assesse di s ver y nea r th e maximu mavailable

Ill . JUDG E BENKT N COMMITTE D PREJUDICIA L ERRO RWHE N H E RELIE D O N INFORMATIO N OUTSID E O FTH E RECOR D FO R HI S DECISION . A . Judg e Benki n Erre db y Relyin g o n Informatio n abou t Pinnacle' s Siz e tha t wa s Outsid e o f

th e Record . I n discussin g acivi l penalt y tha t wil l encourag e futur e compliance , Judg e Benki n state s tha t

"n o evidence.. . suggest s tha t [Pinnacle ] ca n i n trut h b e considere dasmal l business. " Initia l Decisio n a t 16 . Pinnacl e onl y contend s tha t i t i s entitle dt o th e treatmen t unde r th e statut e tha t

bot h th e FA A an dJudg e Benki n cited , 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5)(A) , whic h assesse s a$10,00 0 maximu mpenalty . Further , proo f

o f Pinnacle' s siz e i s th e burde n ofth e FAA , wh o faile d entirel y t o introduc e an y evidenc e int o th e recor da s t o Pinnacle' s size . I n Easter n Ai r Center , FA A Orde r

No . 2008-.1 , a t

*4-5 , th e Administrato r

hel dtha t acivi l penalt y hande ddow n b y Judg e Benki n wa s inconsisten t wit h agenc y polic y whe n "meage r evidence " wa s introduce dabou t th e carrier' s siz e an dreduce dth e fin e accordingly . I n tha t

case , th e Administrato r

foun dtha t

Judg e Benki n impose dth e penalt y base do n a n assumptio n ofth e carrier' s siz e whe n th e FA A faile dt o introduc e adequat e evidence . Id . a t *4 . A s aresult , th e Administrato r classifie d 2 902/22/201 0 14:0 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0035/04 1

th e carrie r

i n th e smalles t

siz e categor y fo r

purpose s o f

determinin g th e prope r

civi l penalty . Id . I n th e presen t case , th e FA A faile dt o introduc e an y evidenc e wit h respec t t o Pinnacle' s size . Likewise , Judg e Benki n erre di n assumin g tha t Pinnacl e wa s subiec t

t o th e statut e whic h encompasse s a$25,00 0 maximu mpenalt y fo r large r siz e carriers . Mor e concernin g i s th e fact tha t Judg e Benki n apparentl y looke doutsid e o f th e recor dfo r

evidenc e o f

Pinnacle' s siz e t o determin e tha t Pinnacl e i s no t

asmal l busines s concer n an da n amoun t o f acivi l penalt y tha t

woul dcaus e a"sever e blow " t o Pinnacle . I n it s Post-Hearin g Repl y Brie f a t 12 , th e FA A attempte dt o stat e ho w man y employee s Pinnacl e ha da t th e tim e ofth e violations . However , pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.230 , th e Post-Hearin g Repl y Brie f itsel f i s no t apar t o f th e recor dan dth e notatio n contain s n o suppor t fro mth e record . Th e regulation s requir e th e AL J t o issu e a n initia l decisio n "onl y i f th e decisio n o r

rulin g i s supporte dby , an di n accordanc e with , th e reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidenc e containe di

n th e record. " 1 4 CF.R . § 13.23 3 (emphasi s added) . Additionally , Judg e Benkin' s initia l decisio n a t 1 , n.l , indicate s Pinnacle' s paren t company' s stoc k

symbol , whic h i s als o outsid e ofth e record , furthe r indicatin g tha t h e sough t ou t informatio n outsid e th e recor dregardin g Pinnacle' s siz e an d fmancials .

3002/22/201 0 14:0 0 FA X 202493514 2 FAA * DM S 0036/04 1



### Becaus e th e siz e ofth e company andmaximumcivi l penalt y availabl e under th e applicabl e statute spea k loudl y t o th e deterren t

effect s o f any civi l penalt

y amount , includin g suc h informatio n outsid e ofth e recor di s higlil y prejudicial an d surel y resulte di

n ahigher civi l penalt

y than woul dhav e bee

n assesse dhadth e recordbee n th e only sourc e o f information , B . Judg e Benki n Erre db y Relyin g o n Informatio n Outsid e of th e Recor dRegardin g Perceive dEas e of Pinnacle' s Remedia l Actions . Despite alac k

o f an y evidenc e i n th e record , Judg e Benki n agai n reference s Pinnacle' s siz e whe n discussin g it s remedia l actions . Initial decisio n a t 12 . Judg e Benki n states : "th e acquisitio n o f ane w computer

progra mi s arelativ e |sic l eas y step t o take ; why woul da

n airlin e o f

Pinnacle' s siz e andresource s continu e t o depen do n acomputer

progra mthat it s ow n staf

f characterize s a s 'ol dand antiquated?' " Initia

l Decisio n a

t 12 . Th e relativ e eas e or

difficult y o f establishin g ane w computer programt o manag e such a

n essential par

t o f abusines s a s hiring , tenninations , dru g testing , payroll , etc. , i s outsid e th e record . Additionally , commo n sens e woul dindicat e that i t woul ddepen do n th e siz e ofth e business , ho w comprehensiv e th e change s are , th e technological knowledg e o f thos e charge dwit

h implementin g th e program , an dvariou s other

factors . T o draw anegativ e inferenc e tha t Pinnacl e di dno t

car e abou t dru g testin g becaus e i t

ha da n ol dcomputer

system , base do n infomiatio n

3 102/22/201 0 14:0 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0037/04 1



### outsid e th e recordabou t

relativ e eas e o f

establishin g ane w one , i s arbitrar y and prejudicial . IV . JUDG E BENKI N ERRE D B Y RELYIN G O N PRIO RVIOLATION S THA T NVER

E NO T SUPPORTE D B Y A PREPONDERANC E O F RELIABLE . SUBSTANTIAL . O RPROBATIV E EVIDENCE . Judg e Benkin' s conclusio n tha t th e fiv e allege dprio r

violation s shoul dall b e considere da s aggravatin g i n thi s cas e i s inconsistent

wit h applicabl e law , regulations , andpubli c policy . Th e FA A carrie s th e burde n o f

proo f i n civi l penalt y actions , excep t

fo r affirmativ e defenses . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) . Th e FA A faile dt o introduc e apreponderanc e o f reUable , substantial , o r

probativ e evidenc e into th e recordt o suppor

t it s allegation s tha

t Pinnacl e ha

dfive instance s o f previou s violation s that

shoul db e considere daggravatin g i n thi s case . Th e FA A produce donly ambiguou s summar y report s firo

mth e "EI S system " t o suppor t it s contentio n tlia

t Piimacl e hadahistor

y o f violations . Tra

n 160:21 ; Exhibit s A- 8 throug h A-12 . Th e report s contai n abbreviate dlanguag e an dlimite d amount s o f

informatio n regardin g th e purporte dviolation s andhistory ofth e actions . See , e.g. , Exhibit s A- 8 t o A-1 2 (Exhibit s themselve s demonstratin g lac k o f clarity , abbreviations , andlimite dinformation) ; Tran . 181:5-1 5 (repor t doc s no t indicate ho w many violation s were involved) ; Tran . 164:6-1 6 (FAA' s Amy Franke l guesse s tha

t "fina l amount " indicate s tha

t Exhibi t A- 9 wa s asettlement) .

.3 202/22/201 0 14:0 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0038/04 1

Significantly , th e larges t allege dprio r

violatio n for

$27,000 , Exhibi t

A-10 , i s ambiguou s wit h regar dt o th e final actio n take n becaus e i t state s "0 0 CIVI L PENALTY " instea dofth e consisten t languag e fromth e othe r fou r report s whic h stat e "2 0 OR D ASSESSIN G CP. " See , eg, . Exhibit s A-8 ; A-9 ; A-11 ; an dA-12 . A t 1 4 C.F.R . Part

13.16(n) , th e regulation s discus s acompromis e orde r i n whic h th e FA A make s n o finding o f aviolation , bu t

th e allege dviolato r

stil l pays . Suc h a n orde r canno t b e use da s evidenc e o f

aprio r violatio n i n an y subsequen t civi l penalt y proceeding . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.l6(n)(iii) . Th e differen t demarcatio n o n th e EI S repor t

ma y indicat e tha t

adifferen t

typ e o f dispositio n wa s reached , bu t th e insufficienc y ofth e document s rende r an y attemp t

t o deciphe r

the mpur e speculation . Despit e th e FAA' s burde n t o establis h prio r violations , i t

faile dt o provid e th e actua l Order s Assessin g Civi l Penaltie s tha t i t claim s establis h prio r

violations , o r an y othe r

non-ambiguous , reliable , substantia l evidenc e t o suppor t it s claims , an dtherefor e faile dt o carr y it s burde n o f proo f Th e FA A instea drelie donl y o n partial , unreliable , redacte dreport s tha t eve n th e FAA' s witnes s ha ddifficultl y deciphering . See , e.g. , Iran . 162:15-1 9 (difficulty ascertainin g th e yea r o f inspection) ; Tran . 164:6-1 1 (unclea r whethe r final amoun t

wa s asettlement) ; Tran . 181:5- l 1 (unclea r

ho w man y allege dviolation s wer e cite di n Exhibi t A-8) ,

3302/22/201 0 14:0 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0039/04 1

Further , Pinnacl e ha dn o opportunit y t o revie w th e allege dprio r violation s tha t th e FA A use dagains t

i t prio r t o th e hearing . Objectio n a t Tran . 154 ; 12

- 155:12 . Therefore , Pimiacl e wa s no t afforde da n opportunit y t o produc e it s ow n reliabl e evidenc e i n th e recor dtha t tlies e allege dprio r

violation s ma y have , in fact , bee n consen t

order s withou t

findings o f

violation s o r

compromis e order s a s contemplate db y 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(n) . Becaus e th e FA A faile dt o introduc e apreponderanc e o f reliable , substantial , o r probativ e evidenc e regardin g Pinnacle' s violatio n history , th e civi l penalt y assesse db y Judg e Benki n wa s grossl y excessiv e an dshoul db e reduce d accordingly .

3 402/22/201 0 14:0 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0040/04 1



### CONCLUSIO N AND RELIE FREOUESTE D Base dupo n th e foregoing , Pinnacl e request s tha t th e Administrato r

reduc e th e civi l penalt

y propose dby Judg e Benki n s o tha t i s in accordanc e wit

h law an d publi c polic y andsupporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , substantial , an d probativ e evidenc e i n th e record . W I lEREFORE , PREMISE S CONSIDERED , Appellant respectfull y request s tha t

th e Administrato r

issu e a n Orde r Assessin g aCivi l Penalty fo r no t more than $54,000 . Submitted : Februar

y 4 , 2010 . By : W . Chri s I larnso n (TN Ba r #018689 ) PINNACL

E AIRI.JNES , IN C I M HOUS E COUNSE

L 168 9 Nonconna

h Boulevard , Suite 11 1 Memphis , Tennesse e 3813 2 Telephone : (901 ) 348-248 3 Fax : (901)348-249 3

3 502/22/201 0 14:0 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0041/04 1

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E Th e undersigne dcertifie s tha t atru e an dcorrec t

cop y ofth e foregoin g wil l b e sen t vi aFedE x t o th e following : Hearin g Docke t

Cler k Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 An db y e-mai l an dregula r U.S . Mai l t o th e following : Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearing s Departmen t

o f Transportatio n (M-20 ) Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 N e Jerse y Ave. , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 David.Bcnkin(^dot.go v Laur aPonto , Attorne y Enforcemen t

D i vision/AGC- 3 0 0 Offic e ofth e Chie f

Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Laura.Ponto(^faa.go v Thi s th e 4' " da y o f

February , 2010 . W . Chri s Harriso n

3 6