§ 113(f) may bring an action under § 107(a). See — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1144, 166 L.Ed.2d 910 (2007). Despite the unsettled waters created by Aviall and its recent progeny, it nevertheless remains for this court to decide whether Emhart, as a PRP subject to an EPA administrative order, may (1) pursue a claim for contribution under § 113(f) and (2) pursue an action for recovery (or contribution) under § 107(a) against another PRP. With respect to the first question, this court concludes that because the bal-anee of decisional authority suggests that the type of administrative order to which Emhart is subject is not a “civil action” within the meaning of § 113(f)(1), Emhart is precluded from bringing a claim for contribution under § 113(f)(1). See Ray-theon Aircraft, 435 F.Supp.2d at 1142 (<HOLDING>); Pharmacia, 382 F.Supp.2d at 1086-87
holding under the circumstances that a criminal proceeding does not qualify as an alternate remedy under the federal fca holding that a section 106 administrative order wouldnot qualify as a civil action under  113f1 holding that wyoming is a unitary entity for purposes of  106 holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable holding that a  106 administrative order does not qualify as a civil action and therefore does not authorize suit under  113f1