U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Complainant 

# RECEIVED AUG -4 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

Vs. Docket No. FAA-1013-1086 FAA Case No. 2011S0190181 PUERTO RICO POLICE DEPT. Respondent Judge

### J. E. Sullivan

ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AND/OR MOTION TO DISMISS AND OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED Herebyappears Respondent, Puerto Rico Police Department, represented by the subscribing coLmsel, and states, alleges and requests as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1. In regardwith paragraph number 1oftheComplaint isacceptedthatdatedMarch 3, 2014 Respondent received a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. Respondent denies as stated the content ofsaid Notice. 2. As to our best belief, in regard with Paragraph number 2 ofthe Complaint, it is accepted that at the time material herein Respondent was the owner of civil aircraft N136PD. 3. Paragraph number 3ofthe Complaint is denied as stated. 

### 4. Paragraph number 4 of the Complaint is denied. Respondent states that on November 

### 9, 2010 what took place were hovering flights associated with the maintenance ofthe aircraft. 5

.. Paragraph number 5 ofthe Complaint is denied. See Answer number 4 above.6. In regard with Paragraph number 6 of the Complaint, Respondent denies the same for lack ofinformation and/or belief. 7. In regard with Paragraph number 7 of the Complaint, Respondent denies the same for lackofinformation and/or belief. 8. Paragraph number 8 of the Complaint is denied. Respondent states that on February 10, 2011 what took place were hovering flights associated with the maintenance ofthe aircraft. 9. Paragraph number 9ofthe Complaint is denied. See Answer number 8above. 10.1n regard with Paragraph number 10 of the Complaint, Respondent denies the same for lackof information and/or belief. 11. Paragraph number 11 ofthe Complaint is denied in part as stated. Respondent arguesthatthe pilot, Lieut. II Santiago Gines Romero, licensewas suspended for a period of 30 days for this event. Respondent took measurements to protect and maintain high security standards of the equipment that was operating. Among those measurements, Respondent began a process of retraining of the pilots and mechanics. 12. Paragraph number 12 ofthe Complaint is denied as stated. See Answer number 11 above. 13.Paragraph number 13 of the Complaint is denied in part as stated. See Answer number 11 above. 14.Paragraph number 14 is denied. Respondent is not subject to a civil penalty because violations were notcommitted by the latter. In regard with the events on March 3, 2011 penalties have been already imposed. 15. Paragraph number 15 does not required aresponsive allegationfrom Respondent. In the alternative, itis denied. 16.Anyallegation not answer must be deem denied.

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFFENSES 1. Respondent is not subject to a civil penalty because violations to the Federal Aviation Regulation were notcommitted bythe latteras stated intheComplaint. 2. In regard with the events on March 3, 2011 penalties have been already imposed tothe pilot in command, suspending his pilot license for a period of30 days.3. For the findings that took place on March 3, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration originally proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $6,600. Dated August 3, 2012 Respondent received and Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, through which the original penalty was increased in the amount of$16,600. This amended penaltywas based on factual errors because the events that took place between November 9, 2010 and february 10, 2011 were not unairworthy flights. All the contrary, these were hovering flights, necessary for the maintenance ofthe aircraft. 4. Respondent took measurements to protectand maintain high security standards ofthe equipmentthatwas operating. Among those measurements, Respondent began a process of retraining ofthe pilots and mechanics. 5. We herebyincorporate by reference the Answers tothe Complaintstated above.

Ill. MOTION TO DISMISS In lieu of the above, Respondent hereby respectfully request the dismissal of the Complaintfiled by Complainant. As previously stated, Respondent is not subject to a civil penalty because violations to the Federal Aviation Regulation were not committed by the latteras stated in the Complaint. We hereby incorporate by reference the Answers to the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses stated above.

IV. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEEM ADMITIED On July 22, 2014 Respondent received a motion filed by Complainant titled "Motion to Deem Admitted". Through said Motion, Complainant argues that Respondent has not filed the Answer (or other responsive pleading) to Complaint. Nevertheless, through the present Motion, Respondent respectfully submits it's Answer and request thedismissal ofthe Complaint in thisstage ofthe proceedings. Said Motion is notfiled with the intention ofdelaying the administrative proceedings beforethe Federal Aviation Administration, but because responsibly was not possible to file an answer tocomplaint until Respondent finished it'sinternal adjudicative procedures against the concerning parties. Notwithstanding the above, since the filing ofthe Complaint the herein appearing party has been in communication with Complainant regarding the issues of the present case in a good faith attemptto delimitatethe controversies. In virtue of the above, Respondent respectfully request that the "Motion to Deem Admitted" be denied.Respectfully submitted this 22 day ofJuly, 2014. 

# L(f()J&LJJY:z__**~zlhm** M. Abdulrahman Soler Legkl Advisor Office of Legal Affairs PO Box 71200 San Juan, PR 00936 Phone 787·793-1234 ext. 3067, 2203 Fax. 787-781-7993 nmabdulrahman®policia.pr.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AND/OR MOTION TO DISMISS AND OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEEM ADMITIED has been sent by the following methods: Original and one copyvia certified mail on July23, 2014: FederalAviation Administration BOO IndependenceAvenue SW WilburWright Building Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 One copyviafacsimile on July 22, 2014 and bycertified mail on July23, 2014: Christopher R. Stevenson Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southern Region P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Fax: (404)-305-5223 HonorableJudgeJ.E. Sullivan Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (e11-310) Washington, de 20590 Fax: (202) 366-2131