SERVED: JUNE 3, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COLGAN AIR, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. F AA-2009-0582 

RECEIVED 

JUN 1 1 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

DEEMING ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED AND ASSESSING CIVIL PENAL TV 

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, 20092 The undersigned was assigned to this 

proceeding by Notice served July 15,20093 

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 about Mr. Schmidt's employment with Respondene (7) information concerning 

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. ofrrehearing 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. at 47. 

9 !d. 
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. § 4630l(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 April 1, 2012, Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., along with its affiliate 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 of New 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. 

On April 8, 2013, we issued an order directing Respondent to, on or before April29, 2013, 

"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 

10 !d. at 59. 11 Jd at 84-85. 12 Id. 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 Fed.App'x 589 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 15 PHC 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 1 (June 22, 2012), available at http://www.regu1ations.gov/#!documentDetail;D~FAA-2009-0 180-

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

Comply with Orders at 3 (June 29, 2012). 

-2-
permitted to late file the requested documents, and (b) attaching all documents ordered at the 

Prehearing Conference on July 13, 2011." 18 On May 1, 2013, two days after the specified date, 

"Respondent Colgan Air, Inc. and Pinnacle Airlines Corp. (collectively 'Pinnacle')" served a 

response, 

19 stating that settlement discussions with Complainant were nearly completed and 

requesting a 30-day extension of the specified date to respond to our order20 The request was 

granted by order dated May 8, 2013, which stated that absent receipt of the required response on 

or before May 29,2013, an order would issue, deeming the allegations of the Complaint admitted, 

and the Complaint would become an order assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $22,000.21 

No response to that order has been received. 

FAA's rules governing investigative and enforcement procedures provide a Respondent 

with the opportunity to request a formal hearing to contest an enforcement action by the 

Complainant. 22 Such a hearing is provided for the benefit, and at the option, of the Respondent. 

To preserve this opportunity, a Respondent must comply with the Rules of Practice and the 

Judge's Orders.23 Respondent has not complied with the Judge's Orders at the Prehearing 

Conference or with either of the Judge's Show Cause Orders. Although a bankruptcy filing 

creates an automatic stay of administrative actions against a debtor/4 the automatic-stay provision 

18 Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge to Show Cause Why Default Should Not Be Entered for Failure to 

Comply with Orders at 4 (Apr. 8, 20 13). 19 Response of Respondent and Pinnacle Airlines Corp. to Show Cause Order and Request for 30-Day Extension 

("Pinnacle Response"). Sent via personal courier on April30, 2013, id. at 3 (Certificate of Service), the Pinnacle 

Response was served on the date personally delivered, May 1, 2013, id at 1 (Date Stamp). See 14 C.F.R. § 13.2ll(d) 

(2013). 20 Pinnacle Response at 1. 21 Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Granting Pinnacle's Request for Extension of Time to Reply to Show 

Cause Order (May 8, 2013). 22 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(!)(3). 23 See Redford Forwarding Co., FDMS No. F AA-200 1-8997, Order to Show Cause of Chief Administrative Law 

Judge at 6 (Oct. 3, 2002), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D~FAA-2001-8997-0015. 

24 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[.]"). 

-3-
does not apply to a proceeding, such as this, 25 concerning enforcement by a federal regulatory 

agency of safety and regulatory laws 26 

Accordingly, the allegations in the Complaint are deemed admitted, a civil penalty in the 

amount of $22,000 is assessed against the Respondent, and this proceeding is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

Respondent may appeal this decision pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(a) by filing a 

Notice of Appeal with the Hearing Docket Clerk, at the address shown on the attached service list, 

not later than 10 days after service of this Order, and serving a copy thereof on each party. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 

· .. ).. . , 

\~_ .. (~e<;~- .. · Hon. Ronnie A. Yo~r 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

25 See Continental Airlines, Inc., FAA Order No. 1991-2, Order Denying Motion for Stay at 8 (Jan. 4, 1991), 

available at http://www. faa. gov/about/office _erg/headquarters_ offices/agc/po 1_ adjudication! AGC400/Civil_ 

Penalty/CaseFile/view/1991/1991-2.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 [11 U.S.C. § 362](b)(4) 

exception applies."); see also Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc., FDMS No. F AA-1990-18405, Order of Administrative 

Law Judge at 1 (Feb. 28, 1991 ), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D~F AA-1990-18405-

0005; Continental Airlines, FDMS No. F AA-1989-18357, Order of Administrative Law Judge at 3 (Jan. 9, 1991), 

available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D~FAA-1989-18357-0002 ("This proceeding seeks to fix 

a civil penalty and determine issues offact 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. 18, 1990), available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D~FAA-1989-18357-000 l (proceedings "appear to be clearly" within 

the definition of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4)). 26 Bankruptcy filing does not stay "the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a , 

governmental unit ... to enforce such governmental unit's or organization's police or regulatory power[.]" 11 U.S.C. 

§ 362(b)(4). See also S. Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 53, reprinted in 1978 US 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." 
FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 00027 

ONE COPY (VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL, FOLLOWING FAXED COURTESY COPY) 

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

Respondent's Counsel 

DOMBROFF GILMORE JAQUES & 

FRENCH, P.C. 

1676 International Drive- Penthouse 

McLean, VA22102 

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 38103 

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 

27 Service was by U.S. MaiL For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

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

-5-