U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

s~:p - 8 2014 

;:\,RING DOCKET 

vs. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-1086 

FAA Case No. 2011S0190181 

PUERTO RICO POLICE DEPT., 

Respondent. Judge Sullivan 

REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE RESPONSE 

Pursuant to the Judge's July 24, 2014, Order, the FAA hereby files its Reply to the 

Respondent's August 22, 2014, Show Cause Response, which concerned whether Respondent 

had shown good cause for its late-filed Answer. Respondent's Show Cause Response fails to 

present a good cause for Respondent's failure to timely file an Answer. 

In its Show Cause Response, Respondent relies on In the Matter of Cornwall, FAA Order 

No. 92-47 (1992). In Cornwall, the Administrator found that a Respondent had shown good 

cause for his failure to timely file an answer where (1) the Complaint did not mention the 

requirement to file an Answer; (2) the mistake was made by Respondent's counsel, not 

Respondent; and (3) it was early in the proceedings. !d. at 2. Notably, the Administrator in 

Cornwall addressed a prior case, In the Matter of Playter, FAA Order No. 90-15 (1990), aff'd by 

Playter v. FAA, 933 F.2d 1009 (6th Cir. 1991), in which the Administrator had overturned the 

Judge's denial of a Motion to Deem Admitted. In distinguishing the two cases, the primary factor 

relied upon by the Administrator was that the Complaint in Playter, unlike the Complaint in 

Cornwall, had informed the Respondent of the requirement to file an Answer. Cornwall at *3; 

1 
see also In the Matter of Metz, FAA Order 90-0003 (finding good cause for a pro se 

Respondent's failure to file an Answer where the FAA had not informed him of his obligation to 

file an Answer). 1 Here, like in Playter, the Complaint expressly informed Respondent of its 

obligation to file an Answer. Complaint at 2 ("PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Title 14 CFR 

Section 13.209(a), you are required to file a written answer to this Complaint, or a written 

Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date shown on the Certificate of 

Service") (emphasis in original). 

Respondent also relies on In the Matter of Safety Equipment and Sign Co., FAA Order 

No. 92-76 (1992). In Safety Equipment, the Administrator found good cause for a Respondent's 

failure to timely file an Answer when a member Respondent's counsel's staff failed to notify 

counsel that the Complaint had been received. That is not the case here, as there is no indication 

that opposing counsel had not received and had an opportunity to review the Complaint. 

Additionally, in the more recent In the Matter of Global Peace Initiative, FAA Order No. 2008-8 

(2008), the Administrator addressed a similar situation and concluded that good cause could not 

be shown where a member of Respondent's staff had mishandled the mail, resulting in 

Respondent's failure to timely file an Answer. !d. at 7. 

In its Show Cause Response, Respondent also makes assertions regarding its "internal 

adjudicative procedures." Respondent appears to assert that the FAA had "tacitly" agreed that it 

could complete an internal investigation before filing an Answer, or that it "was not possible" to 

file an answer until an internal adjudicative procedures had been completed. See Show Cause 

Response at 3, 5. As an initial matter, the FAA notes that it does not have the authority to, 

1 Metz, as with several older cases, discusses whether the FAA provided Respondent with a copy of the Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. Unlike in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the internet now makes the Rules of Practice and 

Procedure readily available to virtually all litigants, thus obviating any need for the FAA to provide physical copies 

to Respondents. 

2 
implicitly or explicitly, extend a Respondent's deadline to file an Answer- rather, this authority 

would lie only with the Judge. Further, the undersigned is unaware of any communications 

between the undersigned and opposing counsel that could be reasonably construed as giving 

some marmer of "tacit" agreement with regards to Respondent's need to file an Answer. The 

undersigned notes that Respondent has referenced an internal investigation being conducted by 

Respondent, but these conversations pertained to settlement. In brief, information has been 

presented to the FAA that Respondent retaliated against a mechanic (or mechanics) who reported 

Respondent's safety violations to the FAA. Respondent has requested that the FAA reduce the 

proposed penalty, and the FAA has informed Respondent that it is unwilling to reduce the 

proposed penalty by any amount unless Respondent has demonstrated that there was no 

retaliation or that it had fully remedied any retaliation against the mechanic(s). Respondent 

requested time to conclude an investigation into this matter (which has, according to Respondent, 

been repeatedly delayed by elections and intra-election changes in political appointees), which is 

why there was such an extensive delay between the Notice in this case, issued on August 12, 

2011, and the Final Notice, issued on March 3, 2014. See Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, 

attached to Respondent's Request for Hearing. Nothing in these discussions in any way related to 

whether Respondent had to file an Answer once litigation had commenced. 

Respondent's argument in this regard is further foreclosed by Playter. As noted above, 

one of the distinctions between Cornwall and Playter was that in Playter the FAA had informed 

the Respondent of the requirement to file an Answer, while in Cornwall it had not. The second 

distinction was that in Playter the Respondent asserted that it believed that its representations to 

the FAA during the informal conference that proceeded the sufficed as an Answer, and that it did 

not have to file the written Answer as required by the Rules of Practice and Procedure (while in 

3 
Cornwall the failure to file an Answer was inadvertent). Similarly, Respondent argues here that it 

believed its conversations with the undersigned, including at the informal conference, meant that 

it did not have to file a written Answer as required by the Rules. This means that Respondent's 

failure to file an Answer was, according to its Show Cause Response, not inadvertent, but rather 

the result of a conscious decision. 

With regards to whether Respondent could file an Answer before concluding its own 

internal investigation, Respondent presents no reason why its investigation into whether it should 

discipline its mechanic(s) for reporting safety violations to the FAA would have prevented it 

from admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint, and even if the failure to complete 

the investigation had somehow denied Respondent full knowledge of the allegations in the 

Complaint, it could have simply filed an Answer denying particular allegations based on a lack 

of knowledge sufficient to admit or deny (indeed, the Answer ultimately filed by Respondent did 

exactly that). 

In this case, the FAA explicitly informed Respondent of its obligation to file an Answer. 

Respondent is not proceeding pro se, but rather is represented by counsel. Further, according to 

its representations in the original Opposition to Motion to Deem Admitted and in the Show 

Cause Response, Respondent did not simply fail to file its Answer through inadvertence, but 

rather chose not to file an Answer because it wanted to complete an internal investigation first. 

Under these facts and circumstances, Respondent has not showrt good cause. 

!)"'A Respectfully submitted this_[/_ day of September, 2014, 

Christopher ~~ R. Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing FAA's Motion to Deem Admitted has been sent this 

date by the following methods: 

original and one copy via certified mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile: 

Nazihra M. Abdulrahman Soler 

Office of Legal Affairs 

Puerto Rico Police Department 

P.O. Box 70166 

San Juan, PR 00936-8166 

fax: (787) 781-7993 

Honorable Judge I.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

fax: (202) 366-2131 

~TA~g~ Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

S~P ? 2014 

Dated 

5