SERVED: APRIL 8, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COLGAN AIR, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EAOO 18 

(Civil Penalty Actions) 

FDMS NO. F AA-2009-0582 

6'_.1; -t 

[r;;! J 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFAULT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS 

This proceeding arises from a Complaint served June 26, 2009, by the Regional Counsel, 

Eastern Region, Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant"), 1 and a Request for Hearing by 

Colgan Air, Inc. ("Respondent"), dated June 15, 2009? The undersigned was assigned to this 

proceeding by Notice served July 15, 2009.3 

On July 13, 2011, a Prehearing Conference was held, during which Respondent was 

ordered to produce the following: (1) proposed factual contentions and submissions differing from 

those made in Sturgell v. Angstadt;4 (2) a Motion to Amend the Answer to conform to admissions 

and positions during the Prehearing Conference;5 (3) the report or other documents relating to the 

internal investigation about the flight manifest;6 (4) the load manifest allegedly prepared by First 

Officer Coats;7 (5) the identity of Respondent's Chief Pilot at the time at issue;8 (6) information 

1 Compl. (June 26, 2009). 2 Request for Hearing at 2 (June 15, 2009). 3 Notice of Assignment of Proceeding at 1 (July 15, 2009). 4 Tr. ofPrehearing Conference at 26-27 (July 13, 2011) [hereinafter PHC Tr.]. 5 !d. at 22-23. 6 /d. at 21-22. 7 !d. at 35-36. 8 !d. at47. 
about Mr. Schmidt's employment with Respondent;9 (7) information concerning First Officer 

Coats; 10 (8) a brief on the responsibility of Respondent for the acts of its officers and pilots; 11 and 

(9) a statement as to whether Respondent asserts the applicability of the small business provisions 

in 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5) for computing the proposed penalty12 and, if so, a brief explaining how 

the provisions apply to Respondent and its affiliates. 13 Complainant agreed to provide the record 

of Sturgell v. Angstadt14 and to reply to Respondent's briefs ordered at the Prehearing Conference 

by August 29, 2011. 15 Respondent failed to file any of the documents ordered. 

On June 22, 2012, Pinnacle Airlines, Corp., filed a Notice of Automatic Stay, stating that 

on April1, 2012, Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., along with itsaffiliate companies (including 

Respondent), had filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United 

States Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District ofNew York. 16 

On June 29, 2012, the judge issued a Show Cause Order directing Respondent to show 

cause why judgment should not be entered against Respondent for failure to comply with previous 

orders and why Respondent should be permitted to file late the required documents. 17 On July 27, 

2012, Respondent filed a Response to the Show Cause Order requesting an additional30 days to 

· either reach a settlement agreement or produce the documents listed in the Show Cause Order. 

9/d. 

10 !d. at 59. 

II fd. at 84-85. 12 !d. at 83. 

13 !d. at 71. 14 /d. at 83; see NTSB Docket No. SE-18404 (2008), Pet. for Review of an Administrative Agency Action, D.C. 

Cir. Docket No. 09-1005 (2008), pet. denied, 348 F. App'x 589 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 15 i>HC Tr. at 86. Complainant and Respondent later agreed to change the reply date to September 29, 2011. 

Respondent's Consent Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule (Aug. 8, 2011). 16 Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., FDMS No. FAA-2009-0180, Respondent's Suggestion of Bankruptcy and Notice of 

Automatic Stay at I (June 22, 2012), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docurnentDetail;D=FAA-2009-0180-

0041; see also In re Pinnacle Airlines Corp., Case No. 12-11343-reg (Bankr, S.D.N.Y.). 17 Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge to Show Cause Why Default Should Not Be Entered for Failure to 

Comply with Orders (June 29, 2012). 

-2-
Since filing the Response to the Show Cause Order more than eight months ago, Respondent has 

failed to submit any documents. 

The Rules of Practice provide a Respondent with the opportunity to request a formal 

hearing to contest an enforcement action by the Complainant. 18 Such a hearing is provided for the 

benefit, and at the option, ofthe Respondent. To preserve this opportunity, a Respondent must 

comply with the Rules of Practice and the Judge's Orders. 19 Respondent has not complied with 

the Judge's Orders at the Prehearing Conference or with the Judge's previous Show Cause Order. 

Although a bankruptcy filing creates an automatic stay of administrative actions against a debtor,20 

the automatic-stay provision does not apply to a proceeding, such as this,21 concerning 

.enforcement by a federal regulatory agency of safety and regulatory laws.22 

18 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(f)(3). 19 See Redford Forwarding Co., FDMS No. FAA-2001-8997, Order to Show Cause of Chief Administrative Law 

Judge at 6 (Oct. 3, 2002), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2001-8997-00I 5. 20 II U.S.C. § 362(a)(l) ("[Bankruptcy filing stays] the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or 

· employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could 

have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor 

that arose before the commencement of the case under this title[.]"). 21 See Continental Airlines, Inc., FAA Order No. 199I-2, Order Denying Motion for Stay at 8 (Jan. 4, I99I), 

available at http://www .faa.gov/about/office _ org/headquarters _offices/age/pol_ adjudication/ AGC400/Civil_ 

Penalty/CaseFile/view/1991 /199 I -2.pdf ("These proceedings do not adjudicate private rights, but ... serve to enforce 

public policy .... Therefore, under either the pecuniary purpose or the public policy test, the [I I U.S.C. § 

362)(b)(4) exception applies."); see also Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc., FDMS No. FAA-1990-18405, Order of 

Administrative Law Judge at I (Feb. 28, 1991), available athttp://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAAI990-I8405-0005; Continental Airlines, FDMS No. FAA-I989-18357, Order of Administrative Law Judge at 3 (Jan. 

9, I99I ), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=F AA-I989-I8357-0002 ("This proceeding 

seeks to fix a civil penalty and determine issues of fact and law related to the FAA's regulatory functions and 

Respondent's regulated conduct. This proceeding does not seek to enforce or collect a money judgment and there is 

no reason to stay these proceedings."); Continental Airlines, Order of Administrative Law Judge at 1 (Dec. I8, I990), 

available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-I 989-I8357-0001 (proceedings "appear to be 

clearly" within the definition of II U.S.C. § 362(b)(4)). 22 Bankruptcy filing does not stay "the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a 

governmental unit ... to enforce such govemmentalunit's or organization's police or regulatory power[.)" II U.S.C. 

§ 362(b)(4). See also S. Rep. No 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 53, reprinted in I978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad News 5787, 

5838, which states the following: 

"Paragraph (4) excepts commencement or continuation of actions and proceedings by governmental units 

to enforce police or regulatory powers. Thus, where a governmental unit is suing a debtor to prevent or 

stop violation of fraud, environmental protection, consumer protection, safety, or similar police or 

regulatory laws, or attempting to fix damages for violation of such a law, the action or proceeding is not 

stayed under the automatic stay." 

-3-
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THATI. Respondent, on or before April29, 2013, shall file and serve a response 

(a) indicating (1) why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Orders of 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge and (2) why Respondent should be permitted to late file the 

requested documents, and (b) attaching all documents ordered at the Prehearing Conference on 

July 13, 2011. 

2. Absent such a filing by Respondent, the allegations of the Complaint shall be 

deemed admitted and the Complaint shall become an Order assessing a civil penalty in the amount 

of$22,000. 

3. A copy of this order shall be sent to Respondent's Counsel, to counsel for Pinnacle 

Airlines, Corp., and to Respondent by registered or certified mail at the addresses provided in 

previous filings in this case. 

Attachment - Service List 

-4-
SERVICE LIST 

FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Room 2W1 00023 

ONE COPY 

Mark A. Dombroff & Charles W. Ryan, Ill, 

Respondent's Counsel 

DOMBROFF GILMORE JAQUES & 

FRENCH, P.C. 

1676 International Drive- Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8700 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

W. Chris Harrison, 

Counsel for Pinnacle Airlines, Corp. 

In-House Counsel 

Pinnacle Airlines, Corp. 

40 S. Main Street, 14th Floor 

Memphis, TN 3 8103 

TEL: 901-348-2483 

Colgan Air, Inc., Respondent 

One Commerce Square 

40 S. Main St. 

Memphis, TN 38103 

Christian L. Lewerenz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, EAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3273 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

23 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Hearing 

Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence A venue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building- Room 

2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-5-