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-1013-1 086 

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 

Hereby appears Respondent, Puerto Rico Police Department, represented by the 

subscribing coLmsel, and states, alleges and requests as follows: 

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

1. In regard with paragraph number 1 of the Complaint is accepted that dated March 

3, 2014 Respondent received a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. 

Respondent denies as stated the content of said Notice. 

2. As to our best belief, in regard with Paragraph number 2 of the Complaint, it is 

accepted that at the time material herein Respondent was the owner of civil 

aircraft N136PD. 

3. Paragraph number 3 of the 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 of the aircraft. 

5 .. Paragraph number 5 of the Complaint is denied. See Answer number 4 above. 
6. In regard with Paragraph number 6 of the Complaint, Respondent denies the 

same for lack of information and/or belief. 

7. In regard with Paragraph number 7 of the Complaint, Respondent denies the 

same for lack of information 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 of the aircraft. 

9. Paragraph number 9 of the Complaint is denied. See Answer number 8 above. 

10.1n regard with Paragraph number 10 of the Complaint, Respondent denies the 

same for lack of information and/or belief. 

11. Paragraph number 11 of the Complaint is denied in part as stated. Respondent 

argues that the pilot, Lieut. II Santiago Gines Romero, license was 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 of the 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 not committed by the latter. In regard with the events 

on March 3, 2011 penalties have been already imposed. 

15. Paragraph number 15 does not required a responsive allegation from Respondent. 

In the alternative, it is denied. 

16.Any allegation 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 not committed by the latter as stated in the Complaint. 

2. In regard with the events on March 3, 2011 penalties have been already imposed 

to the pilot in command, suspending his pilot license for a period of 30 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 penalty was 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 of the aircraft. 

4. 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. 

5. We hereby incorporate by reference the Answers to the Complaint stated above. 

Ill. MOTION TO DISMISS 

In lieu of the above, Respondent hereby respectfully request the dismissal of the 

Complaint filed 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 latter as 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 the dismissal of the Complaint in this stage of the proceedings. Said Motion 

is not filed with the intention of delaying the administrative proceedings before the 

Federal Aviation Administration, but because responsibly was not possible to file an 

answer to complaint until Respondent finished it's internal adjudicative procedures 

against the concerning parties. 

Notwithstanding the above, since the filing of the Complaint the herein appearing 

party has been in communication with Complainant regarding the issues of the 

present case in a good faith attempt to delimitate the controversies. 

In virtue of the above, Respondent respectfully request that the "Motion to Deem 

Admitted" be denied. 
Respectfully submitted this 22 day of July, 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 

nmabdu lrah man®pol icia. 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 copy via certified mail on July 23, 2014: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

BOO Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

One copy via facsimile on July 22, 2014 and by certified mail on July 23, 2014: 

Christopher R. Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Fax: (404)-305-5223 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (e11-310) 

Washington, de 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-2131