SERVED: June 29, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COLGAN AIR, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Actions) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2009-0582 

lEfZ ?q !.:) ?: !I ...... i (;.,. 

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, 200?, by the Regional Counsel, Eastem Region, Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant"), 1 and a Request for Hearing by 

Colgan Air, Inc. ("Respondent"), dated June 15, 2009.2 The undersigned was assigned to this proceeding by Notice served July 15, 2009.3 '• 

A Prehearing Conference was held July 13, 2011, during which Complainant agreed to provide 

the record of Sturgell v. Angstadt4 and agreed to reply to Respondent's briefs ordered at the pre-

"" 

hearing conference by August 29, 2011.5 

At the Prehearing Conference, Respondent was ordered to produce: (1) proposed factual con.: 

tentions and submissions differing from those made in Sturgell v. Angstadt;6 (2) a Motion to 

1 Compl. FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 (June 26, 2009). 2 Request for Hearing at 2, FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 (June 15, 2009). 

3 Notice of Assignment of Proceeding at 1, FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 (July 15, 2009). 

4 Transcript ofPrehearing Conference (PHC Tr.) at 83, FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 (July 13, 2011); see NTSB 

Docket No. SE-18404 (2008), Petition for Review of an Administrative Agency Action, D.C Cir. Docket No. 09-

1005, (2008), petition denied, 348 Fed.App'x 589 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

5 PHC Tr. at 86, FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 (July 13, 2011). Complainant and Respondent agreed to change the 

reply date to September 29, 2011 per Respondent's Consent Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule, FAA Docket No. 

CP09EA0018 (Aug. 8, 2011). 
Amend the Answer to conform to admissions and positions during the prehearing conference;7 (3) 

the report or other documents relating to the internal investigation about the flight manifest; 8 (4) 

the load manifest allegedly prepared by First Officer Coats;9 (5) the identity of Respondent's 

Chief Pilot at the time in issue; 10 (6) Mr. Schmidt's employment with Respondent; 11 (7) information concerning First Officer Coats; 12 (8) a brief on the responsibility of Respondent for the acts 

of its officers and pilots; 13 (9) a statement as to whether Respondent is asserting the applicability 

of the small business provisions in 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5) for computing the proposed penalty; 14 

(10) and, if so, a brief explaining how the provisions apply to Respondent and its affiliates. 15 

Respondent failed to file any of the documents ordered. 

The Rules of Practice provide a Respondent with the opportunity to request a formal hearing to contest an enforcement action by the Complainant. 16 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 Ord~rs .

17 Respondent has not complied with 

the Judge's Orders at the Prehearing Conference. ·, 

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

April1, 2012, Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., along with its affiliate companies (including Respondent), 

had filed a voluntary petition fOr relief under Chapter 1 1 of Title 11 of the Unitea States Code 

6 PHC Tr. at 26-27, FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 (July 13, 2011). 7 Id. at 22-23. 

8 Id. at 21-22. 

9 Id. at 35-36. 

10 Id. at47. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. at 59. 

13 ld: at 84-85. 

14 Id. at 83. 

15 Id. at 71. 

16 Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(t)(3) . 17 See Order to Show Cause of Chief Administrative Law Judge at 6, In re Redford Forwarding Co., Inc., FAA Docket No. CP01EA0002 (Oct. 3, 2002). 

-2-

~ 

: 
with the United States Banlauptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorlc 18 Although a 

bankruptcy filing creates an automatic stay of administrative actions against a debtor, 19 it does not 

apply to enforcement proceedings by a federal regulatory agency in cases involving safety and 

regulatory laws,20 such as this.21 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT1. Respondent, on or before July 30, 2012, 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 Respqndent' s Counsel, Pinna~le Airlines, 

18 Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.'s Notice of Automatic Stay at 1, Docket No. FAA-2009-0180 (June 22, 2012); see also In re 

Pinnacle Airlines Corp., Case No. 12-11343-reg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 19 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(l) ("[Bankruptcy filing stays] the commencement or continuation, including the issuance of 

employment of process, of a judicial,...administrative, or other action or proceeding against the·d@btor 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[.]"). . 20 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 U.S. Code Cong. &Ad. News 5787,5838 ("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."). 21 See Order of Administrative Law Judge, In re Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc., FAA Docket No. CP89NM0483 (Feb. 

28, 1991); see In reOrder of Administrative Law Judge, Continental Airlines, FAA Docket No. CP89SW0016 et al. 

(Jan. 9, 1991) at 3 ("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."). Accord Order of the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge, In re Continental Airlines, FAA Docket No. CP89SW0016 et al. (Dec. 18, 1990) at 1-2. See also In re 

Continental Airlines, Inc., FAA Docket No. CP89NE0031 et al., 199.1 FAA Lexis 310 at *7 ("The conduct of disciplinary proceedings against alleged violators of the safety regulations and the deterrence of future violations of the [Federal Aviation Regulations] are undoubtedly within the regulatory power of the FAA"). 

-3-
't 

.. 

Corp.'s Counsel, and Respondent by registered or certified mail at the addresses provided in previous filings in this case. 

-~~Q. \?J 

Hon. Ronnie A. Yo 

Chief Administrative 

Attachment - Service List 

-4-
SERVICE LIST 

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 2W100022 

ONE COPY 

Mark A. Dombroff & Charles W. Ryan, III, 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, Pinnacle Airlines, Corp. Counsel 

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 

FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

22 

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 Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Room 

2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-5-
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 

.i .. / 

-~ 

-6-