03/11/201 0 17;1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS @I001/03 9

Befor e (h e U.S . DeparCinen t of Transporlutiu n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n I n th e matte r

o f ) ) PINNACL E AIRLINES , INC . ) ) ) DMSNo . FAA-2009-018 0

FA A Docke t No . CP09SO000 2

COMPLAINANT' S REPL Y BRIE F Pursuan t to 1 4 C.F.R . § J 3.233(e) , Complainant , Federal Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , file s thi s Repl y Brie f i n respons e t

o th e briefo f

Appellan t

Pinnacl e Airlines , Inc. , (Appellan t

o r Pinnacle) . Statemen t of th e Cas e Th e FAA conducte da

n inspectio n ol " Pinnacl e Airline s aiitidru g andalcoho l misus e progra

mfo r complianc e wit

h 4 9 C.F.R . Par

t 4 0 an d1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 121 , Appendice s I an dJ i

n September

o f 2007 . A s aresul t

ofii s inspectio n and delemninatio n tha

i repeale dviolalion s of

FA A an dDO T regulation s hadoccurred , th e agenc y propose dacivi l penalt y o f $200,000.' ^ On September 10 , 2008 , th e h"A

A issue da Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty . Exhibi t A-15 . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §13.16(g)( l )(ii) , havin g participate di n informa l proceeding s bu t

unabl e to compromis e th e action , th e agenc y issue daFina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalt

y on l"'ebruar

y 11 , 2009 . Pinnacl e Airline s requeste dahearin g o n

Thi s inspectio n too k

plac e o r September

10-14 , 2007 . Para . 3 o f

Coinplaint , admitte di

n Answer . ^ Pursuant t o 14 C,1-'.K

, 1 J . 16(f)(2) , Pinnacl e wa s affordedth e opportunit y t o respon dt

o the Notic e an

dth e compan y electe dt

o participat e i

n a n informa l conference , Bxhibit

A-17 . Pinnacl e als o submitte dwritte n infonnario n fo

r consideratio n b

y th e FAA . A

n informa l confcrunc e wa s hel dwit h undersigne dcounse l on December 3 , 2008 .03/11/201 0 17:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S 12002/03 9

February 19 , 2009 . Th e agenc y file dit s Complamt o n March 5 , 2009 , allegin g twent y violHtion s o f

Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s an drequestin g tbai acivi l penalt y o f $200,0 0 b e ordered . Pinnacl e file dit s Answer an dAffimiativ e Defense s o n Marc h 31 , 2009 . A hearin g wa s hel dbefore Administrativ e La w Judg e Isaa c D . Benki n on Septembe r

I and2 , 2009 , in Memphis , Tennessee . Tw o witnesse s testifie don behal f o f th e Administrator : Am

y Frankel , Manager

o f th e Fiel dOperation s Branch , Offic e o f Aerospac e Medicine , Dru g Abatement Division , an

dVirgini aLozada , Manager o f th e Easter n Regio n Complianc e an

dEnforcement

Center , Federal Aviatio n Administration , Th e Administrato r

introduce dseventee n (17 ) exhibit s into evidence . Pinnacl e Airline s presente dtestimon y fromtw o witnesses : Mar y Ann Morrow , Vic e President o f People , andMarv aSteed , Senio r

Manager o f Peopl e Siandaid s an dCompliance , Pimiaclu Airlines . Pinnacl e introduce dthirty-tw o (32 ) exhibit s into evidence . A t th e clos e ofth e hearing , Adminisirativ e La w .Tudg c Benki n ordere dth e partie s t o submi t post-hearin g briefs . Bot

h partie s submitte dpost-liearin g brief s befor e th e AL J issue dhi s miiia

l decision . Statemen t of Fact s Th e FA A allege dtwent

y violation s o f

Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (FARS ) allege di n th e Complaint . A s acommercia l ai r carrier , Responden t

i s require dt

o compl y wit h th e Dru g im

dAlcoho l te.sting requirement s set fort h i n 4 9 CFRPar

t 4 0 and1 4 CF

R Par t 121 , Appendice s I an dJ . Complaint para . 1 an d2 , admitte di n Answer . Followin g th e FAA' S September

200 7 inspection , th e agenc y initiate denforcement actio n fo r ttire e genera l categorie s o f

violations . Tr . 97 .03/11/201 0 17:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0003/03 9

First , th e agenc y identifie dtw o pre-employmen t testin g violation s Ib r

ne w hires . Tr . 97 , Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . Par t

121 , Appendi x 1 , Sectio n V.A.I , Pimwcl e wa s prohibite dfro mhirin g an y individua l for asafety-sensitiv e functio n unles s i t ha dfirs t conducte daDepartmen t o f Tran.sportatio n ("DCI'")-require dpre-employmen t les t an d receive daverifie dnegativ e dru g tes t resul t fo r tha t individual . Complain t

para . 6 , admitte di n Answer . I n th e cours e o f th e FAA' s inspectio n o f ai r carriers , i t

relie s upo n interna l document s provide db y th e compan y t o asses s complianc e wit h th e regulations , Tr . 108 . Tli e FAA' s inspectio n reveale dviolation s relate dt o th e hirin g o f tw o employees , Ada mSiewar i an dJerem y Heinbach . Tr . 99 , 102 . O n Septembe r 29 , 2006 , Responden t

hire dMr . Stewar t

L o perfor mmaintenanc e o r preventiv e maintenanc e duties , whic h i s asafety-sensitiv e function , if. 99 , F,xhibi t A-3 , Mr . Stewar t

wa s administere d aDOT-require dpre-employmen t dru g tes t

o n o r abou t Septembe r

29 , 2006 , bu t Responden t

di dno t receiv e averifie dnegativ e diia g tes t resul t fo r hi munti l Septembe r 30 , 2006 . Complain t

par a8 , admitte di n Answer , se e als o Tr . 100 . O n o r abou t Jul y 30 , 2007 , Responden t

hire dMr , Heinbac h t o perfor maircraf t dispatche r

duties , wliic h i s als o asafely-sensitiv e flinction , Tr . 102-103 , Exhibi t A-4 . Whil e Mr . Heinbac h wa s administere daDOT-require dpre-employmen t dru g tes t

o n o r abou t Jul y 2 , 2007 , Pinnacl e di dno t

receiv e averifie dnegativ e dru g tes t resul t fo r hi munti l Augus t

2 , 2007 . Complain t

par a11 , admilie di n Answer . Unde r DO T dru g testin g regulations , Pinnacl e wa s require dt o conduc t pre-employmen t

dru g testin g an dreceiv e averifie dnegativ e tes t resul t prio r t o th e dat e i t

hire dthes e individual s l o perfor msafety-sensitiv e functions , bu t i t faile dt o compl y wit h th e regulations , Tr . 104 , 100 , 103 ; 1 4 CF.R . Par t 121 , Appendi x I , Sectio n V.A.I .03/11/201 0 17:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @]004/.03 9

Th e secon dcategor

y o f violation s involve dth e transfe r o f sixtee n employees , wh o hadno t been previousl y performin g safety-sensitiv e function s a t Pimtacl e Airlines , irt o th e safety-sensitiv e functio n o f Groun dSecurit

y Coordinato r

(GSC) . Complain t

para . 13

- 61 ; se e als o Exhibi t

A-1 , Stipulatio n o f

Facts . Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 121 , Appendi x I , Sectio n V.A.2 , Pinnacl e wa s prohibite dfro mallowin g a

n individual l o b o transferre d fro manonsafety-sensitiv e fiinctio n l o asafety-sensitiv e functio n withou t first conductin g aDOT-require dpre-employmen t tes t an dreceivin g averifie dnegativ e dru g tes t resul t fo r th e individual . Complain t para . 13 , admitte din Answer ; se e als o Tr . 111 . Unde r FAA regulations , allowin g a

n individua l t o atten dtrainin g for asafety-sensitiv e functio n i s deeme dt o b e atransfer

int o asafety-sensitiv e function . Tr . 111-112 , Companie s ar e i n violatio n o f

FA A regulation s if

the y allo w a

n individua l t o atten dtrainin g fo r asafety

sensitiv e functio n prio r

t o conductin g an

dreceivin g averified-negativ e DOT-require d pre-employmen t

dru g test . Exhibi t

A-6 , Tr . 120 . Pinnacl e allowe dsixtee n individual s t o atten dtrainin g t

o perfor msafely-sensitiv e function s prio r t o Pinnacl e receivin g averifie d negativ e DOT-require dpre-employmen t dru g tes t result , i n violatio n o f

FAA regulations . Exhibi t A-] , Stipulatio n o f

Facts , Tr . 120 . Thi s constitute s sixtee n separat e violation s o f FA A regulations , whic h occurre di n numerou s citie s throughou t th e countr

y ove r aperio d o f approximatel y eigh t

months . Tr . 121-122 . Th e thir dcategor

y o f violation s involve dPinnacle' s failure t o conduc t it s rando m dru g an dalcoho l testin g programin accordanc e wit h th e regulations . Complain t para . 62-66 . Unde r

1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 121 , Appendi x T

, § V.B.5 , Pinnacl e i s require dt o conduc t rando mdru g testin g o f

eac h perso n performin g asafety-sensitiv e functio n by aproces s tha t ensure deac h covere demploye e ha da n equa l chanc e o f

bein g teste deac h tim e03/11/201 0 17:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @|005/03 9

rando mselection s for

dru g testin g wer e made . Similarly , unde r 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 12 1 Appendi x J , § II1.C.5 , Pinnacl e i s require dt o conduc t rando malcoho l testin g of covere d employee s in amanne r

iha t ensure deac h covere demploye e hada n equa l chanc e o f

bein g teste deac h tim e rando mselection s fo r alcoho l testin g wer e made . Responden t admitte d t o th e violation s o f

thes e regulations . Answer , admittin g paragraph s 62-66 . At th e conclusio n ofth e FAA' S Septembe r 200 7 inspectio n o f

Pinnacl e Airlines , FAA investigator s develope da n Enforcemen t

Investigativ e Report

(F.IR ) containin g evidenc e ofth e aforementione dviolations . Tr . 95 , 129 . Thi s EIRwas forwarde dt o th e fiel dOperafion s Branc h ofth e FA A fo r civi l penalt

y action . Tr . 129-130 , 149 . Ih e Fiel dOperation s Branc h review s al l BTR s before acivi l penalty i s propose dl o ensur e consistenc y o f

enforcemen t

action s nationwide . Tr . 150 . E I K s are forwarde dfor

legal enforcemen t

actio n whe n they fail t

o mee t th e criteri afo

r administrativ e actio n base do n factor s suc h a s th e presenc e o f repeate dviolafions , ahig h ri.s k factor , or ahig h degre e o f hazard . Tr . 96-97 . Complainan t

propose dacivi l penalty o f $200,00 0 fo

r th e twent y violation s identifie din th e inspectio n i n thi s cas e an dcontaine din th e 81R . Complain t § I . The agenc y determine dtha

t thi s wa s a

n appropriat e civi l penalty unde r all th e fact s an d circumstances . Complain t § III.2 . I n arrivin g a

t thi s propose dcivi l penalty , th e agenc y applie dsanctio n guidanc e approve db y th e Administrator . Exhibi t A-5 , FAA Orde r 2150.3A , Appendi x 4 , Enforcement Sanctio n Guidanc e Table ; Tr . 152 . Consisten t

wit h FA A Order 2150. 3 A , th e FAA considere dth e totality ofth e circumstance s i n proposin g a civi l penalty . Tr . 153 , se e A- 5 a t 2 . Amon g th e factor s considered , th e FAA too k int o account th e violatio n histor

y o f Pinnacl e Airlines . Tr . 153 . Pinnacl e ha dliv e prio r03/11/201 0 17:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S ig|006/03 9

violafion s o f

FA A andD O T dru g andalcoho l testin g regulations . Exhibit s A-8 , A-9 , A

10 , A-11 , A-12 , Tr . 160-171 . Th e prio r violation s include dpre-employmen t icstin g violafions . Tr . 182 , 183 ; se e als o Exhibi t A-10 , A-11 , A-12 . Th e agenc y als o too k "i n ver y hig h regard " th e degre e o f risk pose dby ih e violation s an dthe potentia l har mt o ihe flying public . Tr . 194 . Th e agenc y considere dth e violation s t o b e systemic , du e t o th e fact that five prio r violafion s ofth e dru g an dalcoho l testin g regulation s ha dbee n found , includin g th e exac t

pre-employmen t

dru g testin g violation s a

t issu e i n th e presen t

case , i n prio r enforcemen t

actions . Tr , 201 , Th e agenc y treate dth e pre-employmen t violation s a s fallin g withi n th e maximu mrang e fo r civi l penalties . Tr . 196 . Th e statutory maximu m fo r eac h violafio n i s 525,000 . 4 9 U.S.C . 46301(a)(1) . However , th e agenc y only propose dacivi l penalty o f $200,00 0 fo

r th e 2 0 violation s se

t fort h i n th e Complaint . Th e Administrativ e La w Judge' s Initia l Decisio n Th e AL J foundtha

t Complainan t

presente devidenc e that

establishe dth e violafion s by apreponderanc e ofth e evidence . Inifia l Decisio n a

t 3-4.' ^ Th e AL J

Bot h th e AfJ' S decisio n an

dPinnacle' s Initial Brie f

."itai c thai th e FA

A propo.sc dacivi l penalty fo r 1 9 violations , whe n i

n fact , th e FA

A clearl y allege d20 . /^/'-./Dcci.'iion a t 1 , Appellant'. ^ Brie f

a t 6 , Complain t

(allegin g 2 0 violations) , Tr . a i 3 8 (openin g statemen t

b y agenc y counse l arguin g tha t ther e wer e 2 0 violations , Complainant' s Po.st-hearin 2 Brie f a t 3 (statin g th e complain t

set fort h 2 0 violation s and arguin g tha

t al l 2 0 wer

e ciitablishc dby apreponderanc e ofth e evidence) . Th e agenc y allege dtw o (2 ) pre employme mviolation s fo r employee s tli e company faile dt o tes t prio r t o hire , sixtee n (16 ) violation s fo r employee s Pinnacl e faile dt o tes t prio r t o transfe r an dtw o (2 ) violation s for

failur e to includ e employe e Michae l Sampso n i

n ih c rando mdru g andalcoho l testin g pools , i'e c complaint . Th e apparen t discrepanc y i

n th e number

o f violation s seem s t

o b e i n regar dr o Mr . Samp.son , A s a resul t ofth e failur

e t o includ e Mr . Sampson , asafety-scnsiitiv e employee , i n the mndo mdru g an

dalcoho l testin g pools , Complainan t allege dtvv

o violations . First , Responden t faile dt o conduc t

rando mdru g lesiin g o f eac h perso n performin g asafely-sensitiv e function b y aproces s tha

t ensure deac h covere demploye e ha d a n equa l chanc e of

bein g teste deac h tim e rando mselection s fo r dru g testin g were made , i n violatio n of

1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 121 , Appendi x I , § V,B.5 . Second , Complainan t allege dtha

t Responden t

faile dt o conduc t rando malcoho l testin g o f eac h perso n performin g asafety-sensitiv e functio n b y aproces s iha

t ensure deac h covere demploye e ha

da n equa l chanc e o f

bein g teste deac h tim e rando mselection s fo r alcoho l testin g wer e made , i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 12 1 Appendi x J , 5

) III.C.5 . Thes e wer e TW

O separat e violation s unde r different regulations , I n li s brief , Pinnacl e state s tha i ther e were only 1 9 violalion s an ddiscusse s only aviolatio n involvin g "failur e t o properl y plac e dispatche r Michae l Sampson...int o th e rando mdru g testin g poo l pursuan t t o Appendi x J. " Appellant' s Brie f a t 7 (.statemen

t o f facts) . Thi s statemen t

confuse s the03/11/201 0 17:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS @|007/03 9

discusse dth e evidenc e relate dt o th e hirin g andpre-employmen t testin g o f Ada mStewar t a t lengt h an drejecte dPinnacle' s assertio n that th e internal document s it

provide dt

o the FAA containe da

n euo r andthat , in fact , n o violafio n ha doccurred . Id . Th

e AL J foun d th e testimon y presente db y Pinnacl e i

n defens e t

o thi s violafio n wa s not

credibl e an

dtha t ther e was , in fact , aclea

r violafio n ofth e FARS . Initial Decisio n a t 4 . Th e AL

J note d that Pinnacl e di dno t

attemp t aseriou s challeng e to rhe pre-employmen t testin g violatio n regardin g Mr . Heinbac h an dstipulate dt o fact s demonstratin g tha t th e sixtee n pre employmen t

violation s occurre dwhe n Pinnacl e allowe dihes o employee s to atten dsafcty

sensiiiv e trainin g without

havin g first

receive dverifie dnegafiv e DOT-require dpre employmen t

dru g tests . Id . Finally , th e AL J note dPinnacle' s admissio n that it violate d th e rando mdru g andalcoho l testin g requirement s wit h regardt o Mr . Sampson . Id . Upo n reachin g th e conclusio n that th e evidenc e establishe dth e violation s alleged , th e AL J note dtha t th e only remainin g questio n wa s th e amoun t of civi l penalt

y warranied . Initia

l Decisio n a

t 3-4 . Fh e AL J considere dan

drejecte dever

y basi s offeredb

y Responden t

fo r a rcducfio n in civi l penalty . Initia l Decisio n a

t 5-14 . Th e AL

J als o considere dmatter s i n aggravafio n an dconclude dtha t th e propose dcivi l penall y o f $200,00 0 wa s appropriate . Inifia l Decisio n a

t 15-17 . Standar do f Revie w violations , becaus e Appendi x J addresse s no t th e dru g testin g requirements , bu t th e alcoho l testin g requirements . Thes e are separate regulator y provision s an

dviolations . Thes e were ple d a s separat e allegation s i

n th e complaint

an dPinnacl e admitte dt

o bot h o f them . Se e Complaint , paragraph s 62-66 ; Se e Answer , admittin g thes e allegations . Th e AL J wa s ver y clea r i n hi s findin g tha

t bot h o f thes e violation s wer e admitte dl o and , therefore , include dil l hi s finding s o f

fact . Th e AI J state d tha t "Pinnacl e di d not

a t th e hearin g disput e th e FAA' s charg e tha t i t erroneousl y exclude d on e employe e performin g safety

sen.sitiv e function s fromthe poo l o f Suc h employee s considere dfo r rando mdru g and alcoho l te.sting, " Initia l Decisio n a

t 4 . Therefore , i

t canno t be dispute dtha

t the FA A allege d 2 0 vjolaiion s an d th e A I., ) foun d tha t al l violation s ha

dbee n proven o r

admitted .03/11/201 0 17:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S g|009/03 9

Pursuan t to 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(b) , on appeal th e FA A dceision-make r wil l onl y conside r (1 ) whethe r

eac h finding o f

fac i i s supporte dby apreponderanc e of reliable , probative , an dsubstantial evidence , (2 ) whethe r the law judg e comrnitte dan y prejudicia l errors , an d(3 ) whethe r

eac h conclusio n o f

la w i s mad e i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy . Argumen t L Th e AL J properl y hel dtha t Pinnacle' s repeale dviuhition s of th e FA A an dDO T dru g testin g regulation s pose daseriou s ris k to aviatio n safety in accordanc e wit h law , precedent , an dpubli c policy . Pinnacl e argue s tha

t "Judg e Benkin' s conclusion s o f la w were no l in accordanc e wit h law , precedent , andpubli c policy, " and , in particular , argue s tha i "Judg e Benki n erre dby no t

considerin g th e lo w materia l risk t o th e flyin g public,' ' Appellant' s Brie f a t 13 . Thi s argumen t

i s deepl y flawed . Firs t

an dforemost , nothin g i n th e recor dsupport s th e conclusio n tha

t th e violation s comminc db y Pinnacl e pose dalo w material risk to th e public . T o th e contrary , pre-employmen t dru g testin g violation s ar e treate db

y th e agenc y a s avery seriou s violatio n precisel y becaus e the y presen t suc h asignifican t

risk to aviatio n safety . Polic y statements , th e regulator y preamble , decision s by th e Administrator , an dtesfimony in thi s cas e support th e conclusio n tha t

th e violation s pose d asignifican t

ris k t o aviafio n safely . Se e 6 9 Federal Registe r 184 6 (Jan . 12 , 2004) , h i th e Matte r ofStebbin s Aviarion . Inc. , FAA Order no . 2006- 3 a

t 11 , F N 2 1 (2006) , FAA Orde r 2150.3 B (Exhibi t

A-5) , Tr , 132 , 194 . Pinnacl e ha s no t cite dan y support , lega

l o r factual , fo r it s argumen t

tha t there wa s alo w risk. a . Th e existenc e of

aNon-DO T regulate dtestin g progra mdoc s no t substitut e fo r

complianc e wit h th e requirement s o f aDOT-require d testin g program .03/11/201 0 17:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 12009/03 9

Pinnacl e argue s tha t

ih e violalion s pose da"lo w materia l risk" becaus e i l ha da non-DO T regulate ddru g testin g progra mtha t i t operate dInternally. * Pinnacl e ask s th e Decisionmake r

to infe r tha t th e existenc e o f

an unregulate dtestin g progra mcreate s a lowe r risk tha t safet y wil l b e compromise db y dru g an dalcoho l abuse , withou t an y evidenc e t o subsliintial e tha t claim . A s th e AL J noted , "th e proble mwit h thi s argumen t i s tha t [it ] ignore s th e fac t

tha t al l drug-tesfin g program s ar e no t equal. " Initia l Decisio n at 5 . Th e ALJ' s recogniuo n o f thi s fac t i s premise do n testimon y abou t DO T dru g testin g requirement s an dcontrol s an dth e lac k o f assuranc e tha t

Piiuiaclc' s in-house , unregulate d testin g progra mwa s administere di n acomparabl e manner . Se e Initia l Decisio n at 5-6 . A n unregulate ddru g testin g progra mwit h n o control s o r assurance s o f

it s validit y i s n o substitut e fo r

complianc e wit h DOT-require ddru g testing , no r doe s i t mifigat e violation s ofth e regulations . Whil e Pinnacl e argue dtha t i t "ha s it s ow n non-DO T progra mthat' s prett y muc h exactl y th e sam e a s th e DO T program, " Tr . 25 , th e evidenc e demonstrate dsignifican t difference s betwee n th e tw o programs. ^ DO T standard s fo r dru g an dalcoho l testin g incorporat e critica l measure s t o ensur e th e validit y o f specimen s an dprotec t

th e integrit y

" I n hi s closin g argument . Pinnacle' s counse l aske dthe rhetorica l questio n "wa s ther e avei y hig h ris k l o ih c publi c safet

y i n thes e in.stances ? I \voul dsa y certainl y not. " Tr . 637 . Counse l didno t elici t testimon y fioin an y witnes s qualifie dt o rende r a n opinio n a.s t

o -whethe r the violation." : pose dahig h ris k to publi c safety , nor

di dh e presen t an y evidenc e t o suppor

t hi s persona

l belie f tha t the violalion s pose dalow risk . ^ Althoug h Pinnacl e presente devidenc e that i t ha dconducte dnon-DO T pre-employmen t dru g test s fo r som e o f ih e employee s allovve

dt o ancn dGS C training , th e test s were conducte dvvhe n th e individua l wa s initiall y hire dfo

r anonsafety-sensitiv e functio n a t Pinnacle , no

t v^he n they were transferred . I n man y cases , ther e wa s asignificant tim e perio dbetween eve

n th e dat e ofth e non-DO T dru g res t an dthe dal e the individual s wer

e transferre dinto safety-sensitiv e functions . I n som e case s almos t

u yea r elapse d betwee n th e dat e employee s were administere dnon-DO T test s an dwhe n the y were transferre dint o safety

sen.iitiv c function.^ , See , en , Tr , 385 , Under DO T regulations , pre-employmen t dru g test s remai n vali d only fo r aperio do f

18 0 duys , s o Ities e woul dnot b e recognize da s meetin g the regulator y requirements , even if the y ha dbee n conducte di

n accordanc e wit

h DO T requirements . 1 4 C.F.R . par t 121 , Appendi x 1 , Sectio n V.A.3 : se e als o Tr . 386 , 560 .03/11/201 0 17:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S ijOIO/03 9

ofth e entir e testin g process . DO T regulation s se t fort h requirement s tha t appl y t o th e collectio n proces s unde r whic h aspecime n i s produce dfo r DO T dru g tesfing . Se e Tr . 544-548 . Collecior s mus i b e specificall y Traine di n DO T collectio n processe s an dmee t othe r requirements . See , e.^ . 4 9 C.F.R . § § 40.31 , 40.31 ; se e als o Tr.545 . Ther e ar e specifi c requirement s an dmandate s fo r collectio n site s fo r

DO T dru g tests . See , e.g. , 4 9 C.F.R . § 40.41 . Collectio n site s must , o n DOT-require dteste s undertak e anumbe r o f step s "t o protec t

th e securit y an dintegrit y o f urin e collections. " 4 9 C.F.R . § 40.43 , se e ah o 4 9 C.F.R . § 40.61 , 40.63 , 40.65,40,73 , Tr , 544-548 . DO T regulation s requir e th e us e o f aFedera l C'hai n o f

Custod y For mtha t

als o serve s t o documen t th e collecfio n an d chai n o f custod y ofth e specime n t o ensur e th e validit y ofth e tes t result . 4 9 C.F.R . § 40.45 . I n addifio n t o regulation s governin g collectio n sites , DO T regulafion s als o specif y th e manne r

i n whic h specimen s mus t b e sen t t o an dprocesse db y th e laboratory . DO T regulation s specif

y tha t al l DOT-require dtest s mus t b e sen t t o HH S approve d laboratories , bu t

the y als o requir e specifi c processe s an dstep s tha t lab s mu.s t

follow . Se e 4 9 C.F.R , § § 40.81 , 40.83 ; se e als o Tr . 535-544 . O f course , th e laborator y i s unde r n o obligatio n t o follo w thes e step s i n anon-DO T dru g test . A s th e Administrato r

ha s previousl y noted , DO T regulation s limi i testin g t o five drugs , bu t

al l f^OT-require dtest s mus t includ e thes e five drug.s . 4 9 C.F.R . § 40.85 ; See

als o I n th e Matte r

ofStebbin s Aviation , Inc. , FA A Orde r no . 2006- 3 a t

4-5 , F N 1 2 (2006) . DO T requirement s specif y cutof f concentration s fo r

eac h o f ihes e drugs , o n initia l an d confirmafio n tests , 4 9 C.F.R . § 40.87 ; se e als o Tr . 533-537 . Th e Administrato r als o note dtlia t

adifferen t

resul t ma y b e achieve do n ates t tha t i s administere dusin g differen t

1 003/11/201 0 17:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S gjOII/03 9

cutof f levels . Siebbin s a t

5 , F N 13 . Thi s mean s tha t anon-DO T tes t

processe db y th e laborator y a t

cutof f level s varyin g fro mth e DO T requirement s woul dyiel ddifferen t results . A tes t

ma y b e negativ e unde r

on e se t o f cutof f levels , bu t

positiv e unde r

another . Therefore , th e cutof

f level s ar e importan t

i n determinin g th e outcom e ofth e test . DO T regulation s als o requir e tha t laboratorie s conduc t

validit y testin g o n al l DOT-require ddmgtest^ . 4 9 C.F.T< . § § 40.89 , 40.91 . Thi s imponan i proces s determine s whethe r aspecime n i s diluted , substituted , o r adulterated , al l o f

whic h woul dcircumven t th e DO T testin g proces s an dlea dt o unreliabl e results . Se e 4 9 C.F.R . § § 40.93 , 40.95 ; se e als o Tr . 535-541 , A s a n additiona l measur e i n th e testin g process , DO T regulafion s furthe r provid e fo r

arevie w o f

al l tes t result s b y aMedica l Revie w Office r (MRO ) an d provid e ver y specifi c requirement s fo r th e step s tha t

a n MR O mus t

undertak e t o ensur e tha t th e resul t

i s verifie dappropriately . Se e 4 9 C.F.R . § § 40.121 , 40.123 , 40.127 , 40.129 , AO . n \ ; se e als o Ix . S2 1 Th e regulator y requirement s governin g DOT-require ddru g testin g ar e voluminous , bu t

the y serv e acrifica l function . The y ensur e tha t DOT-require ddru g test s o f individual s performin g safety-sensitiv e function s ar e valid , reliable , an deffeefiv e a t detectin g illici t

dru g us e i n th e transportafio n industry . Non-DO T dru g test s ma y diffe r fro mDO T dru g test s i n man y fundamenta l way s an dar e .<;impl y no t subjec t t o th e sam e control s an drequirements . Eve n i f th e sam e collectors , sam e laboratories , an dsam e MRO s ar e use db y acompan y fo r anon-DO T tes t

an daDO T tcsi , ther e i s n o requiremen t

o r assuranc e tha t

th e collectors , laboratories , o r MRO s follo w th e sam e process . Virgini aI.ozada , Easte mRegio n Complianc e Manager , testifie dtha t base do n F A A audit s o f

collectio n facilities , ther e ar c apparen t difference s i n th e collectio n proces s



# n03/11/201 0 17:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @l012/03 9

fo r DO T an dnon-DO T dru g test s tha t coul dcompromis e th e result s o f suc h tests . See , e.g , Tr . 547-548 . I t

i s conceivabl e tha t

anywher e i n th e dru g testin g proces s - i n collection , at

th e laboratory , o r

durin g ih c MR O verificatio n - difference s i n th e wa y a specime n i s handle do r

processe dcoul dcompromis e th e validit y ofth e tes t an dma y lea d t o adifferen t

resul t tha n i f adru g les t

ha dbee n administere dunde r DO T requirements . A s aresult , ih e FA A doe s no t conside r th e result s o f

dru g test s tha t

ar e no t conducte di n accordanc e wit h DO T standards . Ther e i s simpl y n o assuranc e tha t suc h test s ar e conducte di n avalid , reliabl e manner . Althoug h Pinnacl e assert s tha t i t "request s it s collectio n sites , MRO s an dthir d part y administrator s fo r th e non-DO T progra mmim e th e DO T schem e a s closel y a s possible, " n o evidenc e wa s offere dl o establis h this . Se e Appellant' s Brie f a t 19 . A l hearing , Pinnacle' s witnes s Marv aStee dtesfifie dtha t "w e hav e a n agreemen t wit h [th e thir dpart y administrator ] an dou r collector s tha t

ou r DO T i s th e exac t

sam e a s ou r

non DOT. " Tr . 499-500 , Anothe r witnes s fo

r Pinnacle , Mar y An n Morrow , testifie dtha t Pinnacl e require dth e laborator y t o tes t fo r th e cutof

f level s require db y DO T regulations . Tr . 392 . Ms . Morro w testifie dtha t "w e hol dthe mt o th e sam e standard, " an dtha t sh e believe dth e requirement s wer e writte n int o th e contrac t wit h th e laboratory . I'r . 392 . However , o n cross-examination , sh e admitte dtha t .sh e ha dno t personall y spoke n wit h th e laborator y an dtha t

sh e wa s no t

familia r wit h th e contract . Tr . 393 . Ms . Morro w als o tesfifie dtha t

Pinnacl e ha s conlracl s wii h it s collectors , Tr . 394 , 394 , an dtha t the y hav e "aske dthem " t o follo w DO T requirements , Tr . 399 , bu t sh e coul dno t

specif y whcthc: r Pinnacle' s contract s wit h collecfio n site s require dcollector s t o follo w th e requirement s se t fort h i n DO T regulation s o n non-DO T tests . Tr . 397-399 . Ms . Morro w concede dtha t

1 203/11/201 0 17:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @j013/03 9

i f th e requirement s wer e no t set fort h in th e contract , th e collector s woul dno t b e require d t o follo w DO T standard s on non-DO T tests . Tr . 400.' ' Ms . Morro w als o testifie dthat Pinnacle' s MRO' s follo w DOT-require dprocesse s fo r non-f:)O T tests . Tr . 408 . Ms . Morro w als o testifie dtha t Pinnacl e ha s contract s wit h il s MROs , but

sh e di dno t

recal l whethe r th e contract s set

fort h requirement s fo

r th e vcrificafio n proces s tha t woul d compl y wit

h DO T regulation s fo

r non-DO T tests . Tr . 408-409 . N o contract s or agreement s betwee n Pinnacl e an dit s collectors , laboratory , thir dpart y administrator , or MRO s were provide db y Pinnacl e or introduce dint o evidence . Ther e wa s n o documentatio n o

r corroborafiv e testimon y t o substantiat e Pirmacle' s claim s tha t ther e existe dagreement s betwee n thes e enfitie s an dth e ai r carrie r tha t DO T requirement s woul db e followe dfo

r Pimiaclc' s non-i.)0'J " testin g program . Moreover , testimon y that

th e non-DO T test s an dDO T test s were th e "exac t same " wa s explicitl y discredited . A s the AL J found , "cross-examinatio n turne du p evidenc e tha t

th e non-DO' T test s bein g conducte dfo r Pinnacl e di dno t

compl y wit

h th e Department' s rule s for

dru g tests. " Initia

l Decisio n a

t 4 . Th e evidenc e provide dby Pinnacl e reveale ddifference s i n bot h th e collectio n an

dth e laborator

y processin g ofth e specimens . See , e.g . Tr . 52 2 ( aseven-pane l test , rathe r tha n th e DOT-require dfive-panel dru g tes t wa s conducte db y th e laboratory) , Tr . 50 6 ( aspli t specime n wa s no t

collecte d for non-DO T tesfing , referrin g l o Exhibi t R-13) . Pirmacle' s witnes s concede dtha t sh e di dhav e any actual knowledg e abou t man y ofth e remainin g collecfio n o r la b procedure s for non-DO T tests , asid e fro

mwha t wa s o n th e Custody an dContro l Forms , whic h Althoug h M.s, Morro w testifie dtha t Pinnacl e auditait s collectors , she didno l hav e an y personal knowledg e abou t

thos e audit s an

dcoul dnot

testif y tha t the same procedure s wer e bein g followed , Tr . 40 1 402 . Pinnacl e doe s no t

perfor maudit s o f

it s laboratorie s t o determin e whethe r DOl ' procedure s ar e followe dfo

r non-DO T tests , I'r . 406 . Pinnacl e doe s no t audi t o r conduc t an y typ e o f evaluatio n l o determin e whethe r

MRO s ar e followin g DO T requirement s fo r non-DO T tests . Tr . 409 . 1 303/11/201 0 17:2 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S gl014/03 9

demonstrate dobviou s differences . Tr . 52 2 (n o wa y o f l-uiowin g wha i cutof

f level s ar e teste dfo r b y th e lab) , Tr . 52 3 (witnes s hadn o wa y o f knowin g wha

t collectio n procedure s wer e followed) . Th e AlJ , havin g considere dal l th e evidence , foun diha t "i t i s no t possibl e to say , a s Pinnacl e seem s to do , tha t it s programwa s adequate. " Initia l Decisio n at

5 . Th e AL J correctl y conclude dbase do n th e recor dbefore hi mtha

t "th e fact tha t Pinnacl e hadit s ow n drug-restin g programi n effect i s entitle dt o littl e weight i n assessin g th e amoun t

o f civi l penally."/c/ . al 6 . Jus t a s wit h th e argumen t

abou t non-DO T testing , above , th e argumen t tha t ih e violation s i

n regar dt o Jeremy Heinbac h an dMichae l Sampso n pose da"lo w material risk " ar c equall y unavaihng . A s th e AL J noted , "Pinnacl e di dno t attemp t aseriou s challeng e t o th e FAA' s thesi s tha t Mr , Heinbac h wa s hire dfo r asafety-sensitive " fiincfio n prio r

t o th e dat e upo n whic h Pinnacl e receive daDOT-require dverifie dnegafiv e pre-employmen t

dru g test . Initial Decisio n a t 4 . Pinnacle , in fact , admit s tha t Mr . Heinbac h wa s no t

onl y hired , bu t

allowe dt o star

t work , befor

e aDOT-require d negafiv e dru g tes t

resul t wa s received , Tr . 68 ; Appellant' s Brie f a t 20 . Pinnacl e simpl y argues , again , tha

t thi s violatio n pose d" alo w materia l risk " and , therefore , shoul dno t hav e le dt o th e civi l penalty ordered . See Id . Ther e i s n o evidentiary or lega l suppor t fo r thi s argument . Piiuiacl e assert s tha

t Mr . Heinbac h pose da"lo w risk " becaus e h e wa s i n trainin g durin g th e fime a

t issue . Se e Appellant' s Brie f a t 20 ; Tr . 459 . However , th e regulation s explicitl y stat e tha

t a n individual i

n atrainin g statu s mus t

b e tested . Under

1 4 CF.R . Par

t 121 , Appendi x I , § II I entitle d"Employee s Wh o Mus t b e Tested " include s any

1 403/11/201 0 17:2 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @015/03 9

"individua l i n atrainin g status. " Th e agenc y ha s als o issue dawritte n statement , whic h constitute s adul y adopte dinterpretation , tha t ''w e believ e tha t

th e wordin g ofth e regulatio n i s ver y clea r

an demployer s mus t

follo w th e languag e ofth e regulation . Exhibi t A- 6 a t I . Th e statemen t

explain s tha t

th e DOT-require ddru g tes t mus t b e complete d prio r t o hire , no t

prio r l o performance . Id . I t als o stale s that , unde r

th e regulations , [w] e expec t

eac h employe r

t o pre-employmen t

tes t an dreceiv e th e negativ e les t resul t prio r t o a n employe e bein g hire dfo r safety-sensitiv e functions , eve n i f th e individua l ha s no t

ye t begu n training . Id . at 2 . Th e agency , a t

Tha t time , recognize dtha t

companie s ma y attemp t t o circumven t th e regulation s b y arguin g tha t individual s wer e merel y i n training , a s Responden t ha s i n th e presen t

case . Id . However , th e agenc y flafi y rejecte dthi s a s apotenfia l defens e t o a violatio n ofth e regulation s whe n i t state dtha t

a n employe r

i s i n violafio n ofth e rul e b y no t performin g apre-employmen t tes t an dreceivin g a negativ e tes t

resul t prio r t o th e irifiatio n o f

trainin g the.s e individuaf s wh o hav e bee n hire dfor

safety-sensitiv e functions . Id . Therefore , i t

i s n o defens e t o aviolatio n ofth e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s tha t a n employe e wa s merel y i n trainin g o r ha dno t ye t begu n actuall y performin g safety

sensitiv e work . No t onl y i s th e regulator y languag e clea r o n il s fac e a s t o ihi s point , th e regulator y preambl e specificall y rejecte dth e suggestio n tha t aviolatio n wa s les s egregiou s i f th e individua l wa s merel y i n training . 6 9 Federa l Registe r 184 0 (Jan . 12 , 2004) . Durin g ih e Notic e an dCommen t

perio dfo r

th e 200 4 amendment s ofth e regulation , th e agenc y receive dcomment s arguin g tha t th e agenc y shoul dcreat e an allowanc e fo r employee s t o begi n trainin g prio r

t o havin g complete dth e DO T pre-employmen t tesfing . Id . a t

1846 . Member s o f

th e aviatio n industr y explaine dtha t man y individual s wh o ar e liire dt o

1 503/11/201 0 17:2 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @l01G/03 9

perfor msafety-sensitiv e fiinction s fo r airline s receiv e classroo mo r othe r trainin g a t corporat e headquarter s befor e the y perfor man y wor k tha t coul db e considere dsafety

sensitive . Id . However , th e FAA , havin g considere dal l o f this , rejecte dth e suggestio n tha t som e allowanc e shoul db e permitte dfo r a n employe e t o begi n basi c corporat e trainin g befor e tesfin g wa s completed . The agenc y explicitl y addresse dthi s i n th e preambl e an dreiterate dtha t th e requiremen t

i s "prio r t o hire. " Id . Therefore , tlia t Mr , Heinbac h ma y hav e bee n i n trainin g durin g hi s initia l perio do f employmen t

i s irrelevant . An dther e i s n o suppor t

fo r Pinnacle' s clai mtha t

thi s someho w warrant s areduce dcivi l penalty . Pinnacle' s argument s wit h regar dt o Mr . Sampso n ar e equall y misplaced . Ther e i s simpl y n o basi s upo n whic h th e Decisionmake r shoul dfindtha t

a n erro r occurre dv/he n th e AL J include da n admitte dviolatio n wit h regar dt o Michae l Sampso n i n hi s finding an dcivi l penalty . Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . Par t

121 , Appendi x I , § V.B.5 , Pinnacl e i s require dt o conduc t rando mdru g tesfin g o f eac h perso n performin g asafely-sensitiv e functio n b y a proces s tha t

ensure deac h covere demploye e ha da n equa l chanc e o f bein g lesie deac h fime rando mselecfion s fo r dru g testin g wer e made . Similarly , unde r 1 4 C.F.R . Par t

12 1 Appendi x J , § ITI.C.S , Pinnacl e i s require dt o conduc t rando malcoho l testin g o f covere d employee s i n amanne r

tha t ensure deac h covere demploye e ha da n equa l chanc e o f bein g teste deac h tim e rando mselection s fo r alcoho l testin g wer e made . Pinnacl e admitte d( o th e violatio n o f

thes e regulafions . Se e .^Jiswer , admittin g paragraph s 62-6 6 o f Complaint . Thi s violatio n was , i n fact , quit e egregiou s becaus e fo r almos t seve n month s (fro m Februar y 12 , 200 7 an dth e dat e ofth e inspectio n i n Septembe r o f 2007) , thi s employe e actuall y performe dsafety-sensitiv e function s a s a n aircraf t dispatche r

fo r Pinnacle . Se e

1 603/11/201 0 17:2 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •> • DM S @j017/03 9

Complain t

paragraph s 64-66 , admitte di n Answer . Ih e FAA' s inspectio n reveale d evidenc e o f

performanc e o f

safet y sensifiv e fiinctions b y thi s employe e o n Jul y 1 , 2007 , Augus t 4 , 2007 , an dSeptembe r 1 , 2007 , a t

whic h fime h e wa s no t

subjec t t o DOT

require drando mdni g an dalcoho l testing . Complain t paragraph s 65 , admitte di n Answer . I n Appellant' s Statemen t o f Facts , i t argue s tha t

thi s violatio n wa s inadvertent , tha t th e compan y too k

remedia l measure s t o preven t futur e violation s an dtha t "th e violatio n concernin g Sampso n i s amino r violatio n tha t

shoul dno t

resul t i n alarg e fine agains t Pinnacle. " Appellant' s Brie f at 10 . Pinnacl e faile dt o presen t an y evidenc e wit h regar dt o it s administratio n ofth e rando mdru g an dalcoho l testin g progra mo r tha t i t Loo k remedia l measure s i n regar dt o rando mdru g an dalcoho l testing . Ther e i s cenainl y n o lega l suppor t

o r evidenc e t o suppor t

th e iossertio n tha i failur e l o includ e a n employe e perfonnin g safety-sensifiv e funcfion s for a n ai r carrie r i s " amino r

violation, " Se e Id . Pinnacl e doe s no t

disput e tha t

thi s violatio n occurre do r tha t a n aircraf

t dispatche r wa s performin g safety-sensitiv e function s withou t bein g subjec t

t o DOf-require drando m dru g testin g fo r

asignifican t

perio do f

time . Pinnacl e argue s "becaus e th e omissio n wa s th e resul t o f acompute r

eiTor , Michae l Siunpso n coul dno t hav e possibl y know n tha t h e wa s omitte dfro mth e rando mpoo l an dtherefor e th e deterren t effect s o f

knowin g h e wa s i n th e rando mpoo l an dofth e rando mtestin g requiremen t wer e stil l satisticd. " Appellant' s brie f

at 21-22 . However , ther e wa s no t .sufficien t

evidenc e a s t o wha t

cause d th e violatio n (no r

i s i t relevant ) becaus e th e violatio n wa s admitte dprio r t o hearing . Moreover , wha t

Mr . Sampso n kne w abou t hi s statu s i s irrelevan t

a s th e obligatio n fall s

1 703/11/201 0 17:2 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • » DM S [g|018/03 9

squarel y o

n Pinnacl e to ensur e tha

t it s safety-sensifiv e employee s ar e subjec t t o r.)OT

require ddru g an dalcoho l testing . Th e testimon y cite db

y Piimacl e t

o suppor t th e aforementione dargumen t i s that o f Mar y Am i Morrow , who tesfifiedtlia t acompute r

erro r occurred . Tr . 216 . Sh e reference d document s tha i demonstrate dthi s purporte derror , but the y were no t

introduce dinto evidenc e an dar e no t

part ofth e record . See Tr . 216-217.' ' Althougl i Pinnacl e represente d tha t Sampso n was administere daDOT-require dpre-employmen t dru g test , ther e i s n o evidenc e lo support

thi s in the recor dan di

t i s completel y irrelevan t

lo violafion s ofth e rando mdru g an dalcoho l testin g regulations . There i s als o no suppor t fo r Pinnacle' s insinuatio n tha t

th e onl y purpos e o f

DOT-require drando mdru g an dalcoho l testin g programi s deterrenc e o r

tha t suc h agoal wa s someho w "satisfied " becaus e Mr . Sampso n ma y no t hav e bee n aware ofth e fact thai h e wa s no l include di n th e pool . Appellant' s Brie f a t 21 . Th e recordi s completel y devoi do f anythin g regardin g Mr . Sampson' s knowledg e o f

whethe r h e wa s include di

n th e rando mpool . Mor

e impoitantl y however , thi s argiimen t

fail s t o recogniz e that

th e goa l o f DOT-require ddru g testin g i s twofold : detectio n an ddeterrence . 6 9 Federal Registe r 1840 , 184 0 (Jan . 12 , 2004) . Th e goal o f detectin g dru g o r

alcoho l abus e canno t

b e sai dto hav e bee n "satisfied " whe n a n individua l wa s no t

subjec t t o testing .

^ I n reality , eve n i f

ih e violatio n ha

dresulle dfromth e thirdpart y administrator' s failure t o includ e Mr . Sampso n i

n th e rando mpoo l o r

som e compute r

erro r i n th e transmissio n o f

thi s information , th e regulation s clearl y provid e tha t Pinnacl e remain s responsibl e fo r th e resultin g omissio n an dviolation . Unde r 4 9 C.F.R . Pa n 40.15(c) , regulate dentitie s "remai n responsibl e fo r complianc e wit

h all applicabl e requirement s o f

Ihi. s par t an dothe r DO T dru g an

dalcoho l testin g regulations , eve n whe n you us e a.servic e agent. " Th e regulatio n goe s o n t o state tha

t "you r goo dfait h us e o f aservic e agen t

i s no l adefens e i

n a n enforcemen t

action. " I

t \voul dnot , therefore , hav e prove n to b e avali ddefens e eve n i f Pinnacl e ha

d presente dreliabl e evidenc e tha t a n erro r occurre dn th e computer

transmissio n o f

informatio n t o it s thir d party administrator , I

t i s immaterial at

thi s point , hovvever , becaus e Pinnacl e di dnot deny th e violation, ; an di t i s imprope r

t o now offe

r a n unprove n explai^aiio n an dargu e tha

t th e AL J erre di n assessin g the appropriat e civi l penalt

y fo r a n admitte dviolatio:n . 1 803/11/201 0 17:2 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @l019/03 9

b . Pinnacle' s viulatiun s pus e asignifican t ris k t o aviatio n safety . Th e vas t majorit y ofth e violation s i n thi s cas e involve dth e failure t o compl y wit h DO T an dFA

A requirement s fo

r pre-employmen t

dru g testin g o f

safety-sensitiv e employees . Suc h violation s presen t asignifican t

ris k l o aviatio n safety . Se e 6 9 Federa l Registe r 184 6 (Jan . 12 , 2004) , I n th e Maile r o f Stebbin s Aviation , Inc. , FA A Orde r no . 2006- 3 a t 11 , F N 2 1 (2006) , FAA Order

2150.3 B (Exhibi t

A-5) , Tr . 132 , 194 . Th e regulatory preambl e explicitl y state s tha t tha t "[pjrc-cmploymcn t

violation s are extremel y seriou s becaus e the y indicat e tha t a n employe e wa s place dint o asafety-sensitiv e functio n withou t th e prope r

testing. " 6 9 Federal Registe r 1846 , 184 6 (Jan . 12 , 2004) . In practice , DOT-require dpre-employmen t dru g testin g o f

safety-sensitiv e employee s i s fundamentall y importan t

becaus e ofth e hig h incidenc e o f dru g us e detecte dthroug h ihi s mechanism . I

n fact , "[sjtafistic s sho w tha i pre-employmen t testin g yield s th e larges t numbe r an dpercentag e o f

positiv e tes t

results , alarger

number than all othe r

FAA

require ddru g testin g combined, " Id . D y detectin g dru g us e before a n individual i s hire d t o pe)"fon n asafety-sensitiv e function , "fpjre-eiriploymcn t testin g function s a s th e gatekeeper " t o th e aviafio n industry . Id . se e als o Tr . 132 . Th e failure t o conduc t DOT

require dpre-employmen t testin g andreceiv e averifie dnegativ e resul t befor e a n individua l i s eve n hire di s critical safet y measur e fo

r th e flying publi c an d"an y pre employmen t

violatio n pose s th e risk

o f pcnniltin g ihe entr

y o f a n illega l dru g use r

into th e aviatio n inditstry. " Id , se e als o Tr . 194 . Th e Administrato r ha s als o recognize dtha

t fo r thes e type s o f

violations , th e FAA generall y pursue s th e maximu mcivi l penalty , "give n th e threat

t o aviatio n safet

y tha t thes e type s o f

violation s pose. " I

n th e Matte r

o f Siebbin s Aviatio n Inc. , FA A Orde r no . 2006- 3 a

t 11 , F N 2 1 (2006) . Th e Fiel d

1 903/11/201 0 17:2 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @l020/03 9

Operation s Branc h Manage r a t th e FAA , Offic e o f

Aerospac e Medicine , Dru g Abatemen t Divisio n testifie diha

t violation s o f

DOT-dru g testin g regulation s warran t th e maximu m civi l penalty under

agenc y policy . Tr . 196 . I n thi s case . Responden t

committe deightee n violation s ofth e pre-employmen t dru g testin g requirements ; bot h wit h ne w hire s andwit

h individual s transferre dint o safely-sensitiv e fiinctions . Thes e arc treate da s separat e violation s becaus e "eac h tim e i s aseparat e risk." Tr . 121 . Pinnacl e als o committe dviolation s ofth e requirement s tha t goveiT i ongoin g rando mtestin g o f employee s performin g safety-sensitiv e functions . Regardles s o f

Pinnacle' s assertion s to th e contrary , thes e violation s pos e a significan t safet y risk . Th e AL

J committe dn o er

r when h e decline dt

o accep t Pirmacle' s unsupported , unprove n argumen t that xhe y presente da"low material risk " to safety . Ther e i s n o legal suppor

t for Pirmacle' s suggestio n tha t th e AL J wa s require dt o determin e th e risk

pose db y eac h violation , whe n th e agenc y ha s ahread y detennine dtha

t pre-employmen t

testin g violations , b

y nature , pos e aseriou s risk to ai r safety . ITi

c agenc y reache dthi s conclusio n when i t promulgate dth e regulations , a s rclleeie di n the regulatory history . Se e 6 9 Federal Registe r 1846 , 184 6 (Jan . 12 , 2004) . Therefore , th e pre-employmen t

testin g violation s involve di n th e transfer o f th e sixtee n employee s t

o safety-sensifiv e function s an dth e hire o f Mr . Heinbac h an

dMr . Stewart

al l pose da significan t ris k in ai r safety . Th e violation s o f

D O T-require drando mdru g an dalcoho l testin g requirement s relate dto Mr . Sampso n wa s als o significant . Althoug h Pinnacl e argue s tlia t "th e actua l ris k o f har massociate dwit h th e ris k rsic' j i s minimal, " there i s n o support fo r thi s assertion . Se e Appellant' s Brie f a t 21 . Pinnacl e admit s tha

t fo r aperio do f

seve n months .

2 003/11/201 0 17:2 2 FAX 202493514 2 FA A • > DMS l2|021/03 9

a n aircraf t dispatcher , Mr . Sampson , wa s allowe dto perfor msafety-sensitiv e function s • withou t bein g subjec t

l o DOT-require drando mdru g andalcoho l testing . Actual performanc e o f

asafety-sensitiv e functio n i s considere db e a n aggravatin g factor

i n rando mcoverag e violations , Tr . 606 . Th e ris k inheren t in thi s violatio n i s obvious . n . Th e ALJ' s findin g tha t Fiunaci e committe du violatio n whe n i t hire d Ada mStewar t

wa s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence . Pinnacl e urge s th e Administrato r t o overtur n th e Al.J' s finding o f

fac t on th e basi s tha t it i s "highl y improbable " tha t Ada mStewar t wa s hire don th e dat e th e company' s internal document s reflect . See Appellani' s Brie f (Statemen t

o f Facts ) a t 7 . Pinnacl e als o argue s that

Mr . Stewar

t di dno t begi n workin g unti l afte

r hi s dru g les t

resul t wa s received , bu l ih e regulation s an

dla w ar e clea r tha t th e dat e a n individual first

perform s i s irrelevant . Th e recor

ddemonstrates , b y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an

d substantial evidenc e that

Pinnacl e violate dth e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s w/he n i l hire dAdamStewar

t withou t first conductin g an

dreceivin g averifie dnegativ e tes t resul t o n aDOT-require dpre-employmen t violation . Pinnacl e faile dto present a n adequat e defens e t o thi s violatio n and , i n fact , relie s completel y a t hearin g ando

n appeal , o n unsupporte dinference s an dtestimon y fromawitnes s th e ALJ foun dwa s no t credible . Initia l Decisio n a

t 3-4 . B y contrast , Complainan t presente devidence , provide db y Pinnacl e itself

, tha t establishe dth e dat

e of hire . Exhibi t

A-3 . Pinnacl e doe s no t

disput e tha t anegativ e dru g tes t

resul t wa s no t receive dprio r

to tha t date . I n th e cours e ofth e FAA' s inspectio n o f Pinnacl e Airline s fo

r complianc e wit

h F A A regulation s in September o f 2007 , th e FAA wa s provide dwit h document s evidencin g th e dat e o f

hir e fo r ne w employee s an dih e date upo n whic h pre-employmen t03/11/201 0 17:2 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @j022/03 9

dru g testin g wa s administere dan daverifie dnegativ e dru g tes t resul t waf > receive dfo

r thes e employees . T o evidenc e th e dat e o f hir e fo r Ada mStewart , Pinnacl e provide da n limploye e Actio n Notice . Exhibi t A-3 ; Tr . 99 . Thi s documen t establishe dthai , o

n Septembe r

29 , 2006 , Pinnacl e hire dAda mStewar t lo perfor mmaintenanc e o r

preventiv e maintenanc e dutie s a s a

n A& P mechanic , whic h i s specificall y identifie da s asafety

sensifiv e functio n unde r

1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 121 , Appendi x I . Sectio n III . Exhibi t A-3 . Tli e Employee , Ada

mStewart , signe dthi s for mo n Septembe r

29 , 2006 . Id . It

wa s als o signe db y amanage r

fo r Pinnacl e Airline s on that date . Id . 'Th

e Employe e Actio n Notic e i s complete dfor

a"Ne w Hire " andi n the bo x labele d"Hir e Date " th e followin g entr y appears : "9/29/06. " Id . Piruiacl e di dno t in any wa

y dispui c th e authenticity o f thi s document ; i

n fact , a t hearing , Pinnacl e stipulate dt o it s authenticity . Pinnacl e neve r provide dany informatio n o r evidenc e t o FA

A inspector s that

thes e document s wer e inaccurate , althoug h i

t wa s provide dth e opportunity t o respon dto th e violation s identifie dbefore lega

l enforcemen t

actio n wa s initiated . Tr . 110 ; se e ah o fr . 108-11 0 (proces s throug h whic h acompany ca n addres s any error s o

n it s paperwor

k durin g ihe inspection) . Th e documen t

provide db

y Pinnacl e t o establis h th e dai e o f hir e fo r Mr . Stewar

t speak s for iiself ; il identifie s th e hir e date for Mr . Stewar

t a s Septembe r

29 , 2006 . Pinnacl e admit s that

it di dno t receiv e averifie dnegativ e DOT-require dpre-employmen t dru g tes t resul t prio r t o tha t date. ^ Se e Answer , admittin g t o paragrap h 8 o f Complaint , se e als o Appellant' s Brie

f a t 7 . Th e fact s an

devidence , ilierefore , establis h tha t Pinnacl e

" Pinnacl e admine dparagrap h 8 ofth e Complaint , whic h .set." ; fon h th e followin g facts : "Ste-wa n waj i administere daDOT-require dpre-employmen t drug , tes t on o r abou t Septembe r

29 , 2006 , an

dPinnacl e receive daverifie dnegativ e dru g tes t resul t fo r hi mo n o r abou t Septembe r

30 , 2006. " O

n appeal , Pinnacl e agai n admit s tha

t i t didnot receiv e th e result s unti l Septembe r 30 , 2006 . Appellant' s Brief a t 7 . 2 203/11/201 0 17:2 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @|023/03 9

hire dStewar t

l o perfor masafely-sensitiv e I'unctio n withou t firs t conductin g aDOT

require dpre-employmen t dru g tes t

an dreceivin g averifie dnegativ e dru g te.s i resul t fo r him , thereb y violatin g FA A an dDO T dru g testin g regulations . Whil e Pinnacl e argue s tha t evidenc e presente db y i t a t hearin g showe dn o violatio n occurred , th e onl y evidenc e Pinnacl e i s relyin g o n i s testimon y fro mit s Vic e Presiden t o f People , Mar y Aru i Morrow , an dpayrol l document s tha i ar e irrelevan t a s a matte r o f law . Se e Appellant' s Brie f a t 25-27 . A t

hearing , Ms . Morro w testifie dtha t sh e reviewe dMr . Stewart' s file an ddetermine dtha t h e complete dhi s applicatio n Ib r employmen t

a l Pinnacl e Airline s o n Septembe r 29 , 2006. ' Base do n he r revie w ofth e file, Ms . Morro w testifie dtha t sh e believe da n erro r

ha dbee n mad e b y a n H Rcler k tha t "picke du p th e dat e fro mth e application. " Tr . 220 . It i s no l clea r

ho w sh e reache dtha t conclusion . Ther e wa s n o testimon y fro man y ofth e individual s involve di n th e hirin g o f thi s employee . A s th e AL J recognized , th e onl y witnes s offerin g testimon y abou t thi s hirin g ha dn o persona l knowledg e an dwa s no t involve di n th e relevan t events . Initia l Decisio n at

4 . Th e ALJ , therefore , conclude dtha i h e wa s "unabl e t o credi t Ms . Morrow' s explanatio n fo r

wha t appear s t o b e aclea r

violatio n ofth e FA Ro n th e par t o f Pinnacle. " Initia l Decisio n a

t 4 . Whil e Pinnacl e argue s o n appea l iha t th e AL J shoul dhav e accepte dit s argumen t an dth e testimon y o f

Ms . Morro w b y virtu e o f he r positio n a t

Pinnacle , ihi s argumen t i s withou t merit . Th e mer e fac t

tha t Ms . Morro w i s th e Vic e Presiden t o f Peopl e an dma y

'• ' I n lad , n o document s wer e provide db y Responden t

ihai supporte dMs . Morrow' s .statements . Th e only documentatio n evidencin g hi s dat e o f hiir e i s th e Employe e Actio n Notice , O n cross-exarninalion , Ms . Morro w slate dtha

t Mr . .Stewar

t wa. s extende da

n offe r o f employmen t

o n Septembe r

29 , 200 6 (th e sam e dat e upo n wliJc

h h e complete dhi

aapplication) . Tr . 413 . Sh e le-srifie dtha t sh e didno t

know , no r

did sh e hav e any documentatio n t o show , when Mr . Stewar t accepte dth e offe

r oremploymeni . Tr . 413 , I n fact , whil e Pinnacl e evidence dth e dal e Mr . Stewar t reporte dfo

r wor k throug h payrol l documents , i l never offeredany dal e o f

hir e othe r tha n th e one reflecte do

n tli e employe e actio n notice : Septembe r 29 , 2006 . 2 303/11/201 0 17:2 2 FA X 202493514 2 FAA ^ DM S 12024/03 9

hav e knowledg e about

Pinnacle' s personne l policie s doe s no t entitl e th e speculativ e testimon y sh e offere dt

o mor e weight . See Appellant' s Brie f at 26 . Ms . Morro w ma

y b e qualifie dto testif

y a s t o th e general practice s o f her employer , bu

t tha t doe s no t qualif y her to testif y a s to th e fact s o f

asituatio n sh e ha

dn o involvement

in o r personal knowledg e about.' ° Th e implausibilit y o f he r testimon y an dhe r

lac k o f persona l knowledg e le dth e AlJ' s findings, whic h shoul dno l b e overturne do n appeal . Se e Initia l Decisio n a

t 4 . Th e AI J als o base dhi s rejectio n o f Pinnacle' s defens e o

n th e fact iha l Pinnacl e failedt o presen t

"an y documentatio n to sustai n [Pinnacle's ] burde n o f showin g tha

t it s own record s wer e i

n error. " Initia

l Decisio n a

t 4 . Th e onl y documen t

produce dtha

t provide dadat e o f

hire wa s Exhibi t

A-3 , whic h i s th e Employe e Actio n Notic e relie d upo n b y Complainant . Althoug h Pinnacl e introduce dMr , Stewart' s tim e cards , th e AL J correctl y hel dthat

"th e employee' s payrol l record , standin g alone , prove s nothing. " Initia l Decisio n a

t 4 . I n fact , th e dat e a

n employe e first

work s or i s pai di s wholl y irrelevan t unde r th e regulations . Scelx . 106 .

" On appeal . Pinnacl e argue s tha t "i t i s unrefiite dtha

t Pinnacl e ha s apolic y o f

conductin g backfiioun dcheck s on individual s prio r t o htrinj ; them. " Se e Appellant' s Brie f a t 26 . Pinnacle' s polic y a s to conduc t

backgroun dcheck s wa s no t a t issu e i n thi s case , wa s no l entere dint o evidence , an

dwa s wholly unnecessar

y fo r th e agenc y to "reflite " becaus e i t wa s irrelevant . Live

n i f Pinnacl e ha

dprove n tha

t i t ha da polic y l o follo w TS A regulation s (a n argument

first mad e o n appea l an dno t supporte db

y th e record ) Ifi

c mer e existenc e o f

apolic y piove s iiothinft . Se e Appellant' s Brief a t 26 , T o be sure , Pinnacl e ha s als o claime dthat

its polic y i s t o follo w DO T testin g regulations , bu t il s violatio n histor

y andth e violalion s foun di n th e presen t

cas e sho w tha

t th e mer e existenc e of

apolic y provide s n

o assuranc e that

i t i s followed . There i s n o reaso n l o assume tha

t Ma . Morrow' s testimon y about genera l busines s practice s o r

policie s mean." ? tha t they were followe dwhe

n Mr . Stewar

t wa. s hired . .9* ^ Id . Ms . Morro w offeredinconsisient testimon y durin g th e hearin g i n thi s case . Ms , Morro w testifie d tha t Pinnacl e Airline s ha

dn o intent

t o hire Mr , Stewa n o

n September

29 , 2006 , Tr . 222 . However , she the n testifie dthat

Pinnacl e Airline s offere dMr . Stewar t apositio n o n September

29 , 2006 . Tr . 227 . Whil e thi, ? obviou s inconsistenc y call s into questio n th e credibility o f thi s witness , th e documentar y evidenc e resolve s an y questio n a s t

o whethe r Pinnacl e hire dMr . Stewar t o n Septembe r

29 , 2006 . It

is , i n fact , difficul t t o conceiv e o f

an y other reaso n fo r whic h Responden t

woul dgenerate a

n Employe e Actio n Notic e fo r a"Ne w Hire " o n tha

t date . 2 403/11/201 0 17:2 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 11025/03 9

Unde r th e plai n languag e ofth e regulations , th e relevan t dat e i s th e date upo n whic h a n employe e i s hired ; no t

th e date the y first

repor t fo r duty , ar e paid , o r

perfon n a safet y sensitiv e function . 1 4 C.F.R . Par t 121 , Appendi x I , Sectio n V.A , I n 2004 , th e F A A change dth e languag e o f thi s regulatio n to make i

t abundantl y clea

r tha t DOT

require dpre-employmen t

dru g testin g mus t

b e conducte dan daverifie dnegativ e tes t resul t receive d"prio r

t o hire. " 6 9 Federal Registe r 184 0 (Jan . 12 , 2004) . Th e languag e ha dpreviousl y require dtha t restin g b e complete d"prio r to performance. " Id . a

t IS41 , (Principl e Change s - Appendi x I (Dru g Testing)). ' I n makin g thi s chang e to th e regulation , ih e agenc y wa s specificall y precludin g th e argumen t tha t Responden t

i s malcin g wii h regar dt o Mr . Stewart . Th e ALJ correctl y foun dtha t payrol l record s di dno t effectivel y refute th e dat e o f hir e establishe db y tli e Lmployc e Actio n Notic e an dwere irrelevan t wii h regardt o th e violation . Th e weigh t ofth e evidenc e demonstrate s ihal a violatio n ofth e regulation s wa s committe dwhe n Pinnacl e Airiinc s hire dMr . Stewar t withou t havin g receive daverifie dnegativ e dru g tes t resul t on aDOT-require dpre employmen t

dru g test . Pinnacl e make s the unsupporte dassertio n tha t "determinin g th e hir e dat e i s wiihi n th e discretio n ofth e airline, " and , therefore , an y testimon y and/o r

dat e shoul db e accepted . Appellani' s Brie f a t 27 . Thi s argumen t

i s deepl y flawedfo

r many reasons . At hearing , a n agenc y witnes s testifie dtha t :h c agenc y relie s o

n "th e company' s internal documenis " to determin e what th e dat e o f

hire . Tr . 107-108 . Th e agenc y mus t necessaril y rel y on internal document s an dinformatio n provide dth e companie s it regulate s t

o asses s complianc e wit

h FA A regulations . Th e FAA ha s n o wa y o f knowin g whe n a n individual i s hire dfo

r asafety-sciisiliv e function , asid e fro mth e informatio n

2. 503/11/201 0 17:2 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •> • DM S 12026/03 9

provide db y a

n employer . However , relyin g o n internal document s andinfomiatio n provide db

y th e company i s no i th e same a s deferrin g to an y interpretatio n offere db y a n ai r carrier . I n thi s case , Pinnacl e provide dih e date o f hire for Mr . Stewar

t durin g th e inspection . It s internal document s liste dSeptember 29 , 200 6 a s th e dal e o f

hire . Exhibi t A-3 . Wliil e Ms . Lo7.ad

atestifie dthai acompany shoul db e allowe dt o correc t errors , se e Tr . 227 , it woul dindee db e ii

n absur dresul t i f acompany foundto b e i

n violatio n coul d simpl y mak e th e unsupporte dassertio n tha t the internal document s wer e wron g an

davoi d afinding o f

violation . Pinnacl e hadth e opportunit y t o come forwar

dwit h credibl e evidenc e to establis h tha

t th e liir c document

containe da

n error , bu t

simpl y faile dto . .Se

e Initia l Decisio n a

t 4 . Moreover , Pinnacle' s argument that i t shoul db e allowe dt

o us e it s limecard s t

o determin e th e hir

e dat e an dtha t "Pinnacle' s decisio n t o conside r thi s hi s hire dat e i s no t inconsisten t

wit h th e regulation " ha s already bee n addressed . See Appellant' s Brie f a t 27 . Th e agenc y ha s tlail y rejecte dth e assertio n tha t one' s first

dat e o f peifonnanc e i s th e dat e o f hire . Se e discussion , .s-upra , a t 15 , Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R , § 13.233(b)(1) , on appeal , th e FA A decision-make r

will only conside r

" whether

eac h findin g o f

fac t i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , andsubstantial evidence . I n thi s instance , th e finding o f fact wit h regardt o th e regulatory violatio n involvin g th e failur e to conduc t

an dreceiv e averifie dnegativ e DOT

require dpre-employmen t

dru g tes t fo r Mr . Stewar

t i s supporte dby unrebutte devidenc e tha t meet s th e requiremen t

o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(b)(1 ) andthere i s n o basi s upo n whic h th e Decisiomnake r

shoul doverturn th e ALJ' s finding." Althoug h Pinnacl e argue s tliat till s violatio n wa, s a"mer e paperwor k discrepancy " fo

r which onl y aminimu mcivi l penalt y shoul db e a.ssessed , the cas e la w cite dby Pinnacl e i s wholl y inapplicable . See Appellant' s Brie f

a t 27 . Pinnacl e relie s o

n a n AL J decisio n involvin g violation s that ar e markedl y differen t fromth e cas e at

handan dfail s l o acknowledg e tha t thi s seriou s pre-employmen t testin g violatio n 2 603/11/201 0 17:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FAA * DM S 0027/03 9

111 . Th e S200,00 0 civi l penalt y assesse din thi s cas e i s re<i$unabl e base do n th e natur e ofth e violation s an dth e totalit y ofth e circumstance s i n thi s case . a . N o prejudicia l erro r

wa s committe db y virtu e of acitatio n erro r

t o th e wron g subsectio n ofth e appliciibl c .statute . O n revie w o f

a n AL J decision , th e FA

A Decisioimiake r

i s t o determin e no t merel y whethe r

an y erro r occurre di n th e proceeding s belo w o r initia l decision , bu t whether an y suc h erro r

cause dprejudice . Pinnacl e argue s tha t i t shoul dreceiv e a significant reductio n i

n th e civi l penalt

y becaus e o f

acitatio n error . Pinnacl e argue s that Judg e Benki n committe da n erro r o f law i n hi s initial decisio n whe n h e cite s 4 9 U.S . C , § 46301(a)(5)(a) , th e small busines s sectio n ofth e civi l penalty statute . Th e correc t subsectio n woul dhav e bee n § 46301(a)(1) . Tli e controllin g statute , 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301 , set s fort h civi l penall y liability fo r violation s o f

federa l regulations , includin g the Federa l Aviatio n Regulations . Under 4 9 U.S.C . § 4630 1 (a)(1 ) th e maximu mcivi l penalt y fo r eac h violatio n i s $25,000 . I-Iowcvcr , 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5)(A) , provide s tha t violation s by a

n individua l o r

smal l busines s concer

n are subjec t

t o areduce dcivi l penalt

y o f onl y $11,00 0 per

violation . In orde r to qualif y for treatmen t a s asmal l busines s concer n in ai r transportation , under

1 5 U.S.C . § 632 , a

n ai r carrie r mus t hav e fewer

than 1,500 employees . Th e agenc y erroneousl y cite d4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5 ) i n ih e orderin g claus e o f th e complaint , whic h ma

y hav e le dihc AL J l o refer t o thi s provision . However , thi s wa s harmles s error . I

n th e Complaint , althoug h 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5 ) i s cited , th e same sentenc e cite s th e prope r

civi l penalt

y amoun t o f $25,000 . Th e specifi c subsectio n cite d i n th e complain t

directe dPinnacl e t o th e definitio n fo r smal l busines s concerns , locate da t

wa s not a"mer e papei-wor

k error, " Se e I

n th e Mane r

of Easte mAir

Center , HA

A Orde r 2008- 3 a t

4 (Jan . 28 , 2008) . 2 703/11/201 0 17:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • » DM S @j028/03 9

5 U.S.C . § 632 . Pinnacl e was , therefore , o n notic e a t th e tim e ofth e complain t tha t a smal l busines s ca

n hav e n o more tha

n 1,50 0 employees . It

wa s also , presumabl y aware , tha t i t di dno l mee t

tha t criteria . And , mos t

importantly , it

wa s o n notic e ofth e civi l penalty sough t

b y Complainant . Althoug h Complainan t

di dno t pu t o n specifi c evidenc e tha

t Pinnacl e wa s no t

a smal l busines s concern , i t wa s neve r

raise da s a

n issu e a t an y poin t in th e proceedings , i-'innaclc never

claimed , an ddoe s no t

argu e now , ihai it

i s asmal l busines s or

thai i l legitimatel y qualifie s fo

r th e reduce dcivi l penalty afforde dunde r 4 9 U.S.C . 46301(a)(5) . Pinnacl e di drais e an y argumen t o r affirmativ e defens e tha

t th e maximu m$25,00 0 pe r violatio n di dno t

appl y o r that th e agenc y wa s seekin g astatutoril y inappropriat e civi l penalty . I n il s answer

an di n discovery , whe n aske dt o se t fort h th e specifi c base s fo

r it s denials , whic h woul dhav e include dan y denia l that

amaximu mcivi l penalt

y o f $25,00 0 applied . Pinnacl e di dno t

articulat e thi s argument . Pinnacl e di dnot , a t any poin t in th e hearin g before th e A

l .J , argu e or

presen t any evidenc e tha

t it wa s no t subjec t to ih e general civi l penalty provisio n o f $25,00 0 fo

r eac h violation . Pinnacl e waite dunti l th e recor dwa s close dan dthe n pointe dout in il s post-hearin g brief

, for th e first time, a typographica l erro r

i n th e complaint . Althoug h th e A1..

J wa s certainl y awar e ofth e erro r i n th e complaint , by virtu e o f post-hearin g brief

s on th e subject , i t

appear s tha t

th e AL J picke du p thi s erro r

i n hi s initia l opinion . Initial Decisio n a t 4 , 16 . Th e ALJ , however , correctl y note s througliou t th e decisio n that

Pinnacl e i s liabl e fo

r acivi l penalt

y o f $25,00 0 i n hi s final order . Id . Th e ALJ' s en-o

r i s hamiles s a s i

t doe s no l affcel ih e outcom e ofth e case . Marke t St . Ry. Co. , 32 4 U.S . a

t 561-562 ; I

n th e Matte r

o f ToyotaMoto r

Sales . USA

, Inc. . FAA Orde r

N o 94

-

2 803/11/201 0 17:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 1023/03 9

2 8 (1994) . I n other

words , ha dth e AL

J no t mad e th e mistake , th e resul t woul dhav e been th e saine . When th e AL

J referred , durin g th e hearing , to publicl y available, widely-know n informatio n abou t

Pirmacl e a s alarg e ai r

carrie r an dpublicl y trade dcompan y tha t th e judg e believe dth e FiA

A shoul dhav e bee n awar e of , Pinnacle' s counse l mad e n o objection , Tr , 58 . I

n fact , Pinnacle' s counse l later argue dhimsel f

tha t th e agenc y shoul d hav e bee n awar e o f

an d accountabl e fo

r publicl y availabl e information . See Tr . 63-64 . '^ Pinnacl e di dno t

iniroduc c an y evidence , testimony , or aigumen t tha t i t i s asmal l busines s concer

n o r tha t i t wa s under

th e belie f an dimpressio n tha

i i l wa s subjec t

t o onl y $11,00 0 pe r

civi l penalty . Pinnacl e di dnot enter into th e recordany evidenc e a s to it s siz e o r eve n rais e th e issu e before th e AL J wh o coul dhav e corujidere dth e argumen t an d an y evidenc e to suppor

t it . A t hearing , whe n Complainant' s counse l argue dtha t th e maximu mcivi l penalt

y fo r eac h violatio n wa s $25,000 , Pinnacle' s counse l di dno t objee i or argu e tha t any other civi l penalty maximu mapplied . See , e.g. , Tr . 198-199 . Pinnacl e argue s that

"Judg e Benki n erre din assumin g iha l Pinnacl e wa s subjec t to th e statut e whic h encompasse s a$25,00 0 maximu mpenalt y for larg e siz e carriers. " Appellant' s Brie f

a t 30 . However , an

y erro r i n thi s regardwa s harmles s because , i n fact , Pinnacl e i s alarg e ai r

carrier . Informatio n abou t Pinnacle' s siz e an demploye e bas e i s widel y available . Pinnacle' s ow n publicly-availabl e website state s tha t i t ha s "4,40 0 employees " http;//www.fiypinnacle.coni/site/about/facts.php (accesse d2/23/10) . Th e

' " Coun.se l fo r I'innacl e argue da

t hearin g tha i informauo n abou t th e compan y tha t

i s "publicl y availabl e o n ih e internet, " wa. s no t unfair surpris e t o th e FAA , Se e Tr , 63-6' 1 (discussin g financia l statement s tha

t ha dnot been provide dto th e FA

A unti l ju.s t

before th e hearin g i

n di.scovery) , Ihe numbe r o f peopl e Pinnacl e Airline s employ s i s wel l know n t o Pinnacl e an di s easil y confirme dthroug h Ih e interne t andpublicl y availabl e source s pointe dt o by Pinnacl e durin g th e hearing . 2 903/11/201 0 17:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0030/03 9

FAA , i n proposin g th e appropriat e civi l penalty , considere dth e publicl y availabl e informatio n abou t

th e siz e o f

thi s compan y andpropose dacivi l penalt y tha t wa s entirel y consisten t wit h th e statutor

y mandates . Th e ALJ ma

y hav e cite dt o th e improper subsection , bui "th e slalul e authorizin g th e impositio n o f

eivi l penalties , 4 9 U.S. C § 43601, " Initia l Decisio n a

t 14 , wa s alway s set fort h i n th e pleadings . Pinnacl e wa s o n notic e ofth e amount o f civi l penalt

y propose d andwa s i n n o wa y prejudice din it s rights lo refut e th e violation s b

y thi s error . 1 he AL

J ordere dacivi l penalt

y tha t wa s appropriate unde r

la w an dpolicy . I t i s wel l establishe dthat

harmles s error , whic h ha s n o effect o n th e ultimat e decisio n or

outcom e an

ddoe s no t prejudic e th e rights o f

th e litigants , i s no t

abasi s fo r overturnin g adecisio n o

n appeal . See , e }i

, Marke t St . Ry . Co . v. R

RCommissio n o f

State ofCA , 324 U.S . 548 , 561-56 2 (1945) ; I n th e Matter

o f Toyot aMoto r Saks , USA

, Inc. , FA A Orde r N o 94-2 8 (1994) . I

n thi s case , th e typographical eno r di dno t prejudic e th e right s o f eithe r part y andha dn o effect

o n th e amount

o f civi l penalt

y ordered . Pirmacl e clearl y i s no t

asmal l business . Pinnacl e wa s on notic e o n September 10 , 200 8 (si x month s befor

e th e Complain t

wa s even filed) , tha

t th e FAA intende dt

o see k acivi l penalt y o f $200,000 . See Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalty , Exhibi t A-15 . A civi l penalt y o f $200,00 0 woul db e appropriat e even if th e smal l busines s provisio n applie d an dth e maximu mcivi l penall y wei s $11,00 0 per

violation , given that

ther e wer e 2 0 violation s proven . Th e FA A Decisionmaker

ha s previousl y hel dtha

t even where a

n AL J employ s a n unauthorize dmetho do f determinin g the sanction , th e erro r wa s harmles s i f th e AL J arrive da

t a n appropriate sanctio n anyway . I n the Mane r

o f Blu e Ridg e Airlines ,

3 003/11/201 0 17:2 3 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* DM S @j031/03 9

FAA Orde

r 99-1 5 at 5 (1999) . fh e civi l penalty ordere di n thi s cas e wa s entirel y appropriat e under

th e statut e andshoul db

e upheld,' ^ b . I t wa s consisten t

with la w an dpolic y fo r

th e AL J to conside r Pinnacle' s violatio n history , whic h was establishe db y a preponderanc e ofth e reliable , probative , an dsubstantiv e evidence . I t wa s appropriat e fo

r th e AL J l o conside r Pinnacle' s hi-sior

y o f violation s whe

n h e ordere dth e civi l penall y i n ihi s case . F/V

A Order 2150.3 A expressl y provide s tha t an y histor y o f violation s shal l b e considere dwhe n acivi l penalt y i s propose dfo

r violation s o f FA A regulations . Exhibi t

A-5 , Th e Administrato r

ha s expressl y hel dtha

t th e histor y o f violation s i s a

n appropriat e consideratio n i n determinin g acivi l penalt y fo r violation s ol " FA A regulations . See , e.g. . I n the Matte r

o f Folsom' s Ai r

Service , Inc. , FA

A Order No . 2008-1 1 a t 11 , 12(2008) . Th e evidenc e Complainan t presente dan dprove db

y apreponderanc e ofth e evidenc e wa s tha

t Pinnacl e Airline s ha s ahistor y o f violatin g th e FAA regulations , Complainan t

demonstrate dtha

t Pinnacl e wa s foun dto hav e violate dth e FA A dru g and alcoho l testin g regulation s i n five prior

cases , ^fe-Exhibi t

A-8 , A-9 , A-10 , A-11 , A-12 . Complainan t

introduce drecord s int

o evidenc e tha

t suppor t thi s conclusion , a s wel l a s testimon y fro

mAm y Frankel , th e Fiel dOperation s Branc h Manage r a t th e FAA , wh o

Pinnacl e claiiris , withou t

citatio n t o th e transcript , tha t Complainan t

argue da t hearin g Iha

t th e smal l busines s exemptio n wa s anr^endc dl o inerea.s e th e civi l penalt y t o $25,000 . Pinnacl e als o claim s tha t the sam e argument

wa s mad e i

n th e Complaint

an di n Ih c FAA' s post-hearin g brief . A revie w ofth e document s themselve s reveal s tha t n o suc h argumen

t wa s made . Al hearing , complainan t argue dtha

t th e civi l penalt

y siaime , 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301 , wa s amende dt o increas e th e maximu mcivi l penalt y fi-om$10,00 0 t o $25,00 0 afte

r FA A Order 215U.3 A wa s adopted . Tr . 198 , Thi s i s accurale . On December 12 , 200 3 throug h Publi c La

w 108-17 6 (200 3 H

R2 1 l,i) , the maximumcivi l penalt y fo r violation s o f

FA A regulation s wa s increase diro m.SIO.OO O t o 125,000 . Prio r

t o tha t change , 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(1 ) provide d fo r u civi l penalt

y of no t more tha n $1,00 0 an

d§ 4030 1 (2 ) provide dtha t ai r carrier." ; were liabl e fo

r acivi l penalt y ofno i mor

e tha n $10,000 , As Complainant' s counse l explaine da t hearing , FA

A Order 2150.3 A wa s adopte dprio r

t o thi s statutor

y ehang e and , therefore , th e maximu mrange s liste di n th e Order

wer e actuall y higher

tha n wha t wa s reflecte di

n the order . Tr . 1Q8 . 3 103/11/201 0 17:2 3 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @1032/03 9

personall y reviewe dth e FAA' s computer record s containin g informatio n wit h regar dlo th e company' s violatio n history andoffere dcompeten t testimon y abou t

that history . Pinnacl e challenges , for

th e first time, th e veracity ofth e document s use da s evidenc e ofth e prio r

violation s containe di n th e FAA' s Enforcemen t Informatio n System . Th e Enforcemen t

Informatio n Syste m(EIS ) M s a n automate dmanagemen t informatio n syste mthat

track s th e FAA' s enforcemen t action s o n anationwid e basis. " FAA Order 2150.3B , 9- 1 (2)(a) . EI S "i s th e FAA' s primar y databas e fo

r trackin g informatio n abou t enforcemen t

action s for

statutot y or

regulaior y violalions. " Id . Se e als o Tr . 160-161 , Th e document s introduce dinto evidenc e a t hearin g were officia

l record s kep t

in th e ordinar y cours e o f

busines s an dtiiey wer

e introduce dthroug h a

n agenc y witnes s wh o testifie dtha t

sh e personall y reviewe dthe infomiatio n containe din th e ElS . I'r . 159-160 . Th e EI S report s ar

c reliabl e an dprobativ e anddemonstrate , b y apreponderanc e ofth e evidence , tha t

Pinnacl e ha s aviolatio n history . Pinnacl e di dno t objec t to th e admissibility o r

authenticity o f

thes e document s o n im

y foundational grounds.'' * Moreover , th e agenc y presente dcredibl e testimon y abou t th e prio r violations . Ms . Franke l testifie dtha t

she fully reviewe dth e violatio n histor y o f Pinnacl e Airline s o n file wit h th e FAA , Tr , 160,'' ^ Sh e testifie dtha t th e exhibit s admitte dint o evidenc e to prov e th e violatio n history wer e generate dfro mth e EI S syste man dtha t it i s th e syste m throug h whic h al l FA A enforcemen t case s ar e maintained , fr . 161 .

'' ' Th e onl y objectio n Pinnacl e mad e a t hearin g tha

t i t al.'i o make s o n appeal wa s that

th e agenc y di dno t provid e th e lil S report s throug h discovery . Tr , 154 , However , a s the transcrip t clearl y shows . Pinnacle' s counse l coul dno t identif y an y discover

y reques t i n whic h i t specificall y requeste ddocument s o r evidenc e relate dt o prio r

violation s b y Pinnacl e Airlines , 'l"r . 156.' " Th e AIJ , therefore , overrule dthe objection . !d . " M.S . Franke l testifie dthat , consisten t wit h FAA Order

2I50.3A , th e FA

A considere dPinnacle' s violatio n histor

y a s afacto r

in proposin g th e appropriat e civi l penally . Tr . 153 . 3 203/11/201 0 17:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FAA * DM S g|033/03 9

Pinnacl e doe s no t

disput e that

aviolatio n histor

y exists . Counse l fo

r Pinnacl e Airline s freely adnutte dt o prio r violation s on th e recorda t hearing . Tr . 78." ^ Pinnacl e als o concede s o

n appea l tha t fou r ofth e EI S report s clearl y stat e tha t a n "OR D ASSESSfNI

G CP " wa s issued , leavin g n o rea l disput e abou t

whether afindin g o f violatio n wa s entered.'' ' Appellant' s Brie f a l 33 . Althoug h Pinnacl e argue s iha t th e report s contai n "abbreviate dlanguage, " Ms . Franke l testifie dto a s to th e meanin g o f thi s language . I n particular , sh e testifie dtha t th e report s reflecte da

n "OR D - whic h i s order

- assessin g civi l penalty. " Tr . 165 . Vh e report s demonstrate deverythin g tha t wa s necessar y t o establish ; tha

t aviolatio n hi.stor

y existed . Th e underlyin g faci s o f thos e violation s wer

e immateria l t o th e cas e a t hearing.' * Th e AL J correcti y foun diha

t th e evidenc e establishe da n "unenviabl e histor

y o f non-complianc e wit

h th e FARprovision s pertainin g t o pre-employmen t an dpre-transfei "

" ' Counse l fo

r Responden t

state di n hi s openin g statement : "[l]oo k int o th e facts , ye s Pinnacl e doc s hav e som e prio r

violations , andw e acknowledg e tha t andtha t goe s t o aggravatin g th e amoun t ofth e penalty , I acknowledg e that. ' Tr . 78 . ' ^ A n Orde r Asses.sing Civi l Penalt

y (OACP) , a s amaner

o f course , contain s th e Administrator' s finding s o f

violation , Stt , e.g. , Tr . 166 . I n rar e circumstances , under 1 4 C,F,R . § 13.16(n ) (1 ) "[a] n agenc y attorne y may compromis e any civi l penalt y actio n where aperso n charge dwit h aviolatio n agree s t o pa

y a civi l penalty andth e FA

A agree.* ! no t

t o mak e afinding o f

violation, " I f

asettlemen t

agreemen t

fo r the amount o f civi l penalt

y .simpl y result s i n a n OACP , the violation s wil l b e considere di n subsequen t

cases . Pinnacl e admit s tha t

fou r o f ih c EI S report s indicate iha t a n OAC P wa s issued . Se e Appellant' s Brie f at 33 , referrin g t o Exhibit s AS , A-9 , A-1 1 an dA-12 . Becaus e OACP s contai n finding s o f violation , there ca

n be n o disput e that

aviolatio n histor

y wa. s prove n by thes e repoiT S an dth e correspondin g testimony . Pinnacl e ha. s presente dno evidenc e t o counte r the tcsLimon

y rha t th e remainin g violatio n als o resulte di n afindin g o f violation . Se e '

f r, 167 , referencin g A-10 , Althoug h Pinnacl e argue s thai th e "differen t demarcatio n o

n rh e [remaining ! EI S report

ma y indicat e tha

t adifferent

dispositio n wa s reached" , h e failedt o elici t testimon y t o suppo n thi s speculatio n durin g the hearing . Appellant' s Brie f a t 33 . O n cros.'^-examination , counse l cenainl y coul dhav e draw n ou l an y ambiguity . However , he didno t as k Ms . Franke l wha

t rha t demarcatio n mean t o r whethe r a n Order o f Compromis e ha

dbee n issued . H

e di dno t i n an y wa y refut e he r testimon y thai aviolatio n ha

dbee n found . Pinnacl e prescnic dn o evidenc e that an y o f thes e matter s wer e resolve di n Order s o f Compromis e o r

withou t finding."; o f

violation . Pinnacl e simpl y faile dt o rebu t th e credibl e evidenc e presente da

t trial .

' " Th e witnes s di dnot

nee dto kno w "specificall y wha t happene dt o caus e thes e pre-employmen t violations " o r

rh e specifi c numbe r

o f violalion s i

n eac h civi l penalt

y action . Se e Tr . 183 , Appellant' s I3rie f a t 33 , Th e violation. 5 were establishe da s amane r of recordwit

h th e f-'AA. Similarly , i

t i s iiiunaierial whethe r afinding o f

violatio n wa s reache dthroug h settiemen i o r adjudication ; the y ar e treate dth e sam e fo r purpose s o f

violatio n history . T r

166 , Appellant' s Urie f

at 33 . 3 303/11/201 0 17:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @|034/03 9

testin g o f it s employees. " Initial Decisio n a t 14 . Credibl e evidenc e supporte dth e ALJ ' s findin g tha

t Pimiacl e Airiinc s hadahistory o f violation s whic h wa s appropriatel y considere di n assessin g aeivi l penalt y i n thi s matter . c . Remedia l Actio n wa s considere db y th e AL J an dfoun dt u b e ittsufticien t

t o warran l areductiu n i n civi l penulty ; thi s determinatio n shoul db e upheld . Pinnacl e assert s iha

t th e AL J erre db y no t

reducin g th e civi l penalt

y base do n remedia l action . Appellant' s Brie f a t 22 . AAe r considerin g al l th e evidenc e presente db y Pinnacl e a s to it s correctiv e action , th e -A. ! . J hel dtha t [gjive n th e fac t

that th e burde n of

persuasio n rest s on th e shoulder s ofth e Respondent , i t

i s no t possibl e a

t thi s tim e t

o conclud e t o Pinnacle' s effor t t o tfik c correctiv e actio n wil l achiev e result s that are sufficient

o r swif t withi n th e meanin g o f

[law] . Initia l Decisio n a

t 12 , citing , Westair

Commute

r Airlines , FA

A Orde r No . 1993-1 8 a

t 1 1 (1993) , American Ai

r Network , FA

A Order No . 2006-5 , Docke t

No . CP40WP00I 4 (February 10 , 2006) . Pinnacl e faile dt o demonstrat e tha t i t undertoo k

correctiv e actio n sufficient t o warran t areductio n i

n civi l penalty . Pinnacl e cite s t o several action s i t loo k i n respons e lo ihe violation . First , Pinnacl e implemente dane w compute r system , sinc e il s existin g syste mwas , b y it s own employee s descriptio n "ol dan dantiquated. " Tr . 216 , 219 , Piimacl e take s issu e with th e ALJ' s statemen t tha t "th e acquisitio n o f

ane w compute r programi s arelativel y eas y sle p l o take ; wh y woul da n airlin e o f

Pinnacle' s siz e an dresource s continu e to depen don acompute r programtha t

it' s ow n staf

f characterize s a s 'ol dan dantiquated?' " Initial Decisio n a t 12 , Appellant' s Brie f

a t 31 . However , Pinnacle' s in-hous e counse l boaste da t hearin g tha

t Pinnacl e "ha[s ] abou t

3 0 I f people. " I'r . 87 . I

t i s certainl y reasonabl e fo r the AL J t o questio n why any company

3 403/11/201 0 17:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S ©035/03 9

woul drel y on a

n inadequat e computer

syste mandthe n expec t

areductio n i n civi l penalty whe n th e compute r

syste mi s replace dwit

h amore appropriate , functiona l one . Implementin g ane w compute r programtha

t allow s Pinnacl e to "trac k whateve r dataw e like , s o i

t give s u s a

n opportunity to trac k

thei r [safety-sensitiv e hire ] dates , thei r dru g testin g dates , lot s o f

information, " offer s n o assuranc e tha t complianc e wil l b e achieved . Se e Tr . 219-220 . A ne w compute r syste mma

y allo w fo r mor e dat ainpu t

an d greate r tracking , bu t

i l doe s not , b

y itself , "promis e to b e effectiv e in eliminatin g Pinnacle' s heretofore laisse?:-fair e approac h to pre-employmen t dru g testin g withou t

a chang e i n attitud e towardthes e requirement s by it s managemen t a s well. " Initial Decisio n a

t 12 . Dat aentr

y an dtrackin g i s perhap s on e componen t tha t wil l assis t

a compan y i

n complyin g wit

h the regulations , bu t

it i s b y n o mean s aguarante e o f greate r complianc e when systemi c problem s exis t in ii s dru g testin g program . Tr . 201 . Second , Pinnacl e claim s tha t it too k "swif t andcomprehensiv e action " tha t warrant s aI'eductio n i

n civi l penalty whe n i t

change dth e forma

t fo r trainin g manager s fro malectur e t

o a n onlin e training . Tr . 248-249 , There i s n o evidenc e t o suppor t th e clai mtha t onlin e trainin g wil l be , or is , an y mor e effectiv e tha

n alectur e environment . Th e case s cite db

y Pinnacl e t

o suppor t it s clai mtha

t changin g it s trainin g forma t warrant s areductio n in civi l penalt y ar e no t precedentia l an dd o no t

suppor t areductio n i n thi s case . Appellant' s Brie f

a t 24 , citin g th e Matte r

o f Mole-Maste r

Service s Cor/?. , DM S N o FAA-2008-069 ] a

l 5 (Feb . 10 , 2009) , FA

A v. Husk y Corp. , FA A 2007-012 0 a t 6 (Oct . 31 , 2008) . Third , Pinnacl e claime diha t it s correciiv e actio n include d"retrainin g manager s o n dru g an dalcoho l testing. " Appellant' s Brie f a t 23 . Ther e i s n o transcrip t citatio n o r testimon y t o suppor

t thi s claim .

3 503/11/201 0 17:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0036/03 9

Fourth , Pinnacl e claim s that it implemente dne w procedure s andaudit s in a n effor t t o achiev e complianc e wit h th e regulations . Id . However , th e testimon y about an y ne w procedure s wa s ver

y limite dan

dn o interna

l polic y wa s introduce dinto evidence . Pirmacl e onl y presente dtestimon y tha t i t ha s ne w procedure s fo

r verifyin g negativ e DOT-require ddru g tes t

result s for

Groun dSecurit

y Coordinator s (GSC ) befor e allowin g the mto atten dtraining . Tr , 251-252 . A s wa s previousl y discussed , there wer e thre e categorie s o f

violation s in thi s case ; pre-employmen t testin g violation s fo

r ne w hire s performin g safety-sensitiv e function s (i n thi s case , maintenanc e o r preventiv e maintenance) ; pre-employmen t testin g violation s fo

r individual s transferre dint o asafety

sensiiiv e functio n (i n thi s instance , GSC) , andviolation s ofth e DO T requirement s fo r rando mdru g an dalcoho l testin g (fo r adispatcher) . Pinnacl e presente dn o evidenc e o f any remedial actio n talce

n l o ensur e complianc e wit h th e regulation s fo

r ne w hires , fo

r rando mdru g an dalcoho l testing , o r fo r an y safety-sensitiv e function s other tha n GSC . Th e AL J correctl y conclude dtha

t th e evidenc e presente dregardin g Pinnacle' s remedial measure s wa s unpersuasive . Th e AL J observe dtha

t "Pinnacl e i s jus t

takin g step s i t shoul dhav e take n year s ago. " Initia l Decisio n a

t 12 . Whil e correctiv e actio n ma y preven t fiitur e violation s an dbrin g acompany into complianc e wit h th e regulations , i t doc s not excus e violation s thai hav e already occurred . In th e Matte r ofMaun aKec

i Helicopters , FA

A Orde r No . 97-1 6 a

t 4 , F N 1 3 (1997) . d . Th e civi l penalt y ordere db y th e AL J wa s consisten t wit h la w an d polic y an dshoul db e upheld . Th e civi l penalt

y ordere di

n thi s cas e i s appropriate . Under FAA policy , th e violation s i n thi s cas e fel

l int o th e maximu mrang e fo

r civi l penalties , fr . 196-197 , Each ofth e violation s i n thi s cas e wa s subjec t t o amaximu mcivi l penalt y o f 525,00 0 per 3 603/11/201 0 17:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S 0037/03 9

violation , meanin g tha

t atotal civi l penalt

y o f $500,00 0 coul dhav e been sough t b y Complainani . Complainant sought acivi l penalt

y of $200,00 0 afte

r considerin g al l th e fact s an dcircumstance s se t fort h i n FA A Order 2150.3A . Tr . 15 3 (notin g th e factor s se t fort h i n FA A Orde r 2150.3A.) . Ili c FA

A Decisionmake r

ha s recognize dtha

t "Law Judge s mus t

follo w th e sanctio n guidanc e containe di n FA A Order 2150.3A, " th e purpos e o f whic h "i s t o promol e nationwid e consistenc y an dfairnes s i

n th e settin g o f

civi l penalties. " I n th e Matte r

o f Blu e Ridg e Airlines , FA

A Order 99-1 5 a t 3 (1999) , citin g FA A Orde r 2150.3 A Appendi x 4 , p . 1 , Eilxhibi i A-5 , Th e FAA Decisionmake r ha s stresse dtha

t ''i t i s incumben t

upo n la w Judge s t

o apply agenc y polic y faithfully. " I n the Matter o f Northwes t

Airlines , FA

A Orde r No . 1990-3 7 a t

8- 9 (1990) . Th e ALJ weighe dth e factor s an devidenc e an

ddetermine dthat

a n appropriat e civi l penall y hadbeen proposed . Initial Decisio n a t 4-17 . Ih e AL

J provide dathorough , reasonabl e explanatio n ofth e amoun t o f civi l penalt

y assessed . Se e I n the Matte r o f Toyot aMoto r Sales , USA

. Inc. , FAA Orde

r N o 94-2 8 (1994) ; I

n th e Matte r

o f Blue Ridg e Airlines , FAA Order

99-1 5 a t 3 (1999 ) ('Ja w judge s ar

e expecte dto giv e areasone d explanatio n ofth e amount ofth e civi l penalt

y selected'') . Tli e ALJ' s explanatio n account s fo

r all mitigatin g an daggravatin g factor s an di s i n accordanc e wit

h la w an d policy , CONCLUSIO N A preponderanc e o f

reliable , probative , an

dsubstantial evidenc e support s th e ALJ' s finding tha

t Pinnacl e committe dth e violation s o f tli e FA A regulation s allege din th e Complain t

in thi s matter . Hi s conclusion s wer e i n accordanc e wit

h law , precedent ,

3 703/11/201 0 17:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FAA + DM S 0038/03 9

an dpolicy , N o prejudicial error s occurre dandther e i s n o basi s upon whic h t o reduc e th e civi l penalt

y on appeal . Therefore , th e AlJ' s decisio n shoul db e affiraie di n it s entirety . Respectfully submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l Enforcement

Division , AGC-30 0 •^t/f aPonto 'Attorney , AGC-30 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e ofth e Chie f

Counse l 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 (202 ) 267-986 3

3 803/11/201 0 17:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0039/03 9

Certificiil e of

Servic e I hereb y certif

y that on thi s dat

e I hav e sent

b y Federa l Expres s acop y o f Complainant' s Reply Brief/? ? the Matte r o f Pinnacl e Airlines , DM S No . FAA-2009

- 0180 . FAA Docke i No . CP09SO000 2 addresse dto ;

W. Chri s Harriso n Directo r o f Lega l Affair s Pinnacl e Airiincs , Inc . 168 9 Nonconna

h Boulevard Suit e 11 1 Mempliis , T

N 3813 2 I hereb y ceitif

y that on thi s date I hav e sen t

b y Federa l Expres s acop y ofth e foregoin g documen t

to : F A A Decisionmaker Federa l Aviatio n Adrtiinistratio n 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 Washington , O.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 I hereb y cert

i F y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sent

b y U.S . Mai l th e original andtw o copie s ofth e foregoin g documen t to : FA A Decisionmake r Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn ; Hearin g Docket

Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wright Building , Suite 2W100 0 - / : 

### UJ,.4^^^ ^ Dated : Marc h 10 , 201 0

3 9