REPLY Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Complainant: Epic Aviation Services LLC, a 

Colorado LLC

v.

Respondent: Arapahoe County Public Airport 

Authority

Docket Number 16-12-01

REPLY UNDER FAR RULE 16

2.(a) Admit.

(b) Admit.

(c) Admit.

(d) Admit.

(e) Denied. Gwen Balk only requested written confirmation from Scott Amore that he sold 

his ownership interest to Della Rosell. Scott Amore provided this information in his letter of 

April 22nd.

(f) Admit.

(g) Denied. The letter, which speaks for itself, simply reiterates a request made at the April 

20th meeting. Moreover, the letter neither has the correct meeting date - it was April 20th not 

April 19th – and it falsely states that the Airport was first made aware of the change of ownership 

on by Amore’s letter of April 22nd. Yet in paragraph (c) the Airport admits they were made 

aware of the change in ownership by eh new application and at the April 20th meeting. In fact, 

Colorado public records indicate that the change of ownership took place on April 13th, a week 
REPLY Page 2 of 11

earlier. This information would be trivial if it were not for the fact that the Airport bases its 

entire revocation case on failure to provide information in a timely manner.

(h) Denied. The Airport email, which speaks for itself, did not provide Epic counsel with the 

requested information. See Complaint paragraph 9-11.

(i) Admit that the Airport sent a letter captioned 30 day Notice of Termination on July 15th. 

Other than that, the letter speaks for itself.

(j) Denied. With its letter of July 29th, Epic fully responded to the purported Notice of 

Termination. The July 29th letter from Epic and the July 15th letter from the Airport to which it 

replied speak for themselves. Moreover, Gwen Balk admitted this. See Transcript 65:10-74:1.

(k) Admit that the Airport sent a request for additional information on August 9th and that it 

set a deadline of August 21st but deny that there were deficiencies in Epic’s July 29th response to 

the Airport’s July 15th letter. The July 29th letter from Epic and the July 15th letter from the 

Airport to which it replied speak for themselves.

(l) Denied. Epic tried to provide the additional information requested by August 21st but on 

three occasions the Airport refused to let them speak – on August 11th, 15th and 16th. See 

Complaint paragraphs 16, 17 and 18. 

(m) Denied. The full Section 6. Requires that the “Licensee shall keep and maintain at Airport 

or at such other place as may be approved in writing by Authority, true and accurate books and 

records regarding the aircraft used in its operations under the terms of this Agreement in a form 

satisfactory to Authority.” No other books and records are required to be maintained. Epic did 

not use an aircraft in its operations and the Airport never provided a form for such books and 

records.
REPLY Page 3 of 11

(n) Denied. Although Epic is required to permit the Airport to inspect its premises, the 

Airport never requested or attempted to make such an inspection. 

(o) Admit that Section 8 of the AUS says what they say it says but deny that Epic ever failed 

to so notify the Airport of such changes.

(p) Admit that Section 10 and 11(e) of the AUS says what they say it says but deny that the 

Airport ever stated what is meant by Minimum Standards, deny that Epic ever failed to employ 

personnel who meet FAA minimum standards and deny that the Airport has authority to set 

standards that are not consistent with FAA standards.

(q) Admit that Section 11(q) of the AUS says what they say it says but deny that Epic ever 

violated or was ever even charged with violation of any such laws rules or regulations.

(r) Admit that Section 11(s) of the AUS says what they say it says but deny that the AUS 

was ever transferred or assigned. i.e. the Complainant, Epic Aviation Services LLC was and 

always has been the licensee.

(s) Admit that Section 12 of the AUS says what they say it says but deny that the Airport 

ever defined “non-monetary default.”

(t) Admit that Section 701.1 of the Rules and Regulations says what they say it says but 

deny that any commercial aeronautical activities performed by Epic were not approved by the 

Airport.

3.(a)(1) Denied. In fact, the Airport admits it received notification of such change on April 20th

and again on April 22nd. 
REPLY Page 4 of 11

(2) Denied. AUS ¶12 does not require that information be provided by any deadline and the 

written correspondence in evidence proves that Epic provided timely responses to each request 

for additional information until they were prevented from providing additional information.

(3) and (4) Denied. Nowhere in the AUS, the Minimum Standards or the Rules and Regulations 

is the Airport given authority to approve or disapprove of licensee employees. Nor has the 

Airport ever made such a demand on any other licensee. But it is undisputed that at all times 

Epic had in its employ FAA certified avionics technicians. Moreover, Dick Niehues was present 

at the August 11th hearing to answer any questions the Airport might have had. Complaint ¶17.

(5) Denied. It is undisputed that up until the August 11th hearing, when the Airport began 

refusing to let Epic speak, Epic provided all the information requested. But nowhere in the AUS, 

the Minimum Standards or the Rules and Regulations is the Airport given authority to approve or 

disapprove of licensee’s management. Nor has the Airport ever made such a demand on any 

other licensee. 

(b) Denied. The Airport admitted that Epic notified them of the change in ownership on April 

20th and 22nd.

(c) Denied. On August 11th, 15th and 16th, Epic tried to answer all the Airport’s questions but 

they did not want to have their questions answered. This was a pretext for a pre-conceived plan 

to deny Epic its right to lawfully do business on an airport that is funded by the FAA. The only 

dangerous precedent being set is the Airport’s discriminatory conduct against one licensee by 

imposition of requirements that are not contained in their rules and which have never been 

imposed on any other licensee.
REPLY Page 5 of 11

(d) Denied. Although grant assurance 22(i) allows “airport proprietors to prohibit specific 

aeronautical uses” it does not allow economic discrimination between similar users. That is, 

since the Airport allows airplane and avionics maintenance businesses such as Epic to operate on 

the airport, it may not apply different standards to Epic’s use than it does to other’s uses. 

Moreover, nowhere in the AUS, the Minimum Standards, the Rules and Regulations or FAA 

grant assurance is the Airport given authority to approve or disapprove of the qualifications of a 

properly certificated licensee employee. Nor does any provision of the AUS, the Minimum 

Standards, the Rules and Regulations or FAA grant assurance allow the Airport to deny a 

licensee to right to hire contract personnel or require contract personnel to be separately licensed 

by the Airport. Nor has the Airport ever imposed such requirements on any other airport 

licensee. The Airport’s power does not encompass “the safe operation of the Airport in all 

respects.” Some of those powers are retained by the FAA under the Supremacy clause of the 

U.S. Constitution. Abdullah v. American Airlines Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 1999)

“Our finding of implied field preemption here is based on our Conclusion that the FAA 

and relevant federal regulations establish complete and thorough safety standards for 

interstate and international air transportation that are not subject to supplementation by, 

or variation among, jurisdictions. While some courts have found federal law to preempt 

discrete aspects of air safety, e.g. French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 

1989); World Airways, Inc. v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 578 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 

1978); Kohr v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 504 F.2d 400 (7th Cir. 1974), we hold that 

federal law establishes the applicable standards of care in the field of air safety, generally, 

thus preempting the entire field from state and territorial regulation.” Id at 367

Nor has the Airport been given the power to determine the “qualifications” of FAA certified 

mechanics beyond that determined by the FAA. And nowhere is the Airport given the power to 

set “qualifications and experience of management of aviation businesses.” Nor has the Airport 

ever exercised such “power” to deny or revoke the license of any other business. To obtain 
REPLY Page 6 of 11

millions of dollars in funding, the Airport assured the FAA it would not discriminate against 

airport users. The Airport has no right to deny airport access to “inexperienced management.” 

The Airport has no right or basis to conclude that inexperienced management might “result in 

business profit and cost efficiencies being chosen over aviation safety.” This statement is pure 

speculation unsupported by any evidence. The Airport has no right or basis to retaliate against 

“contentious and argumentative” licensees by denying them airport access

(e) Denied. While the original application contained Scott Amore’s credentials including his 

FAA certificates, the Airport lacks authority beyond checking his credentials to usurp the FAA’s 

role in insuring his qualifications to exercise the privileges of his certificates. Similarly, the 

Airport was notified that Dick Niehues replaced Mr Amore and was provided copies of his FAA 

certificates. At no time did they question the authenticity of those certificates or check with the 

FAA to determine whether Mr Niehues was qualified. Further, as of the August 11th hearing, 

Dick Niehues had been hired as an employee so as to satisfy the Airport’s alleged requirement.

(f) Denied. The information provide by Epic is in writing, is in evidence, and it speaks for itself.

(g) Denied. There is no such thing as a de-facto assignment. De-facto assignment is not defined 

by law or by any provision of the Airport’s rules. A change of ownership is not an assignment 

by any definition. Moreover, the Airport has never before defined a change of ownership as an 

assignment nor has the Airport ever before required approval of a change of ownership as an 

assignment.

(h) Denied. Nowhere do the AUS, the Minimum Standards or the Rules and Regulations define 

failure to provide information as a default. But the information provided by Epic is in writing, is 

in evidence, and it speaks for itself.
REPLY Page 7 of 11

(i) Denied. Epic tried to provide all the information requested at the August 11th hearing and 

again on August 15th and 16th but the Airport denied Epic the opportunity to speak. 

(j) Denied. The Airport purported to terminate Epic’s license but such termination was illegal. 

4. Epic is suing the Airport in Arapahoe County District Court for an injunction barring 

revocation of Epic’s license based on violation of due process under the 14th Amendment to the 

U.S. Constitution and Section 25 of the Colorado constitution. Epic also alleges that the 

Airport’s revocation was an abuse of discretion and exceeded their jurisdiction. If however, Epic 

is forced out of business because airport landlords are fearful of Airport retaliation or other 

reasons related to the Airport action, the complaint will be amended to allege damages.

It is undisputed that the Airport approved Epic’s license when the company was owned 

by Scott Amore. The Airport’s harassment of Epic began shortly after it was given notice that 

Epic was purchased by Della Rosell, an experienced business woman. Of this change in 

ownership, the Airport said: 

“Upon review of this information, the staff has determined that Ms. Rosell, is not 

qualified to operate an aircraft and avionics maintenance operation pursuant to the 

Authority’s Minimum Standards, Part 3 “Certifications & Experience Information”. Ms. 

Rosell, whose primary skills relate to office management, does not have the required 

Federal Aviation Administration certifications to conduct the services for which the 

permit was issued. 

It is the opinion of staff that Mr. Mark May is the de facto operator of Epic and that Ms. 

Rosell serves a “paper” role only. Since Ms. Rosell is not qualified to operate this 

business and does not staff the business with enough employees who are properly 

certificated by the FAA for the activities listed in the Operating Permit, staff recommends 

that the Board either rescind or terminate the Operating Permit for Epic effective 

8/21/2011” Report/ Recommendation To The Board Of Commissioners Of Arapahoe 

County Public Airport Authority And Record Of Action dated August 11, 2011.

Exhibit I.
REPLY Page 8 of 11

Ms. Rosell was identified as the owner and manager. Her resume was provided to the Airport 

with the July 29th response to the Airport’s July 15th inquiry. Exhibit 8. About Ms. Rosell, that 

letter said:

“Della Rosell – Owner. Ms. Rosell does not perform any aircraft maintenance, and does 

not hold any relevant licenses in that regard. She does however have business experience 

and her CV is attached.”

She was never identified as a person who was qualified to or would perform aircraft

maintenance.

About Mark May, the letter said:

“Mark May – Mechanic/Supervisor. Mark May’s credentials should be on file with the 

airport, as filed because of his previous ownership of Epic. Though he continues to work 

at Epic, his role is limited to that of Mechanic and Supervisor. When Della is not in the 

office, he is the responsible person onsite.”

Other than the fact that Ms. Rosell is a woman, the Airport had no grounds to say that “.Mr. 

Mark May is the de facto operator of Epic and that Ms. Rosell serves a “paper” role only.” The 

only basis the Airport had for saying that “Ms. Rosell is not qualified to operate this business” is 

that she is female. Accordingly, the burden is on the Airport to prove that its motive was not sex 

discrimination.

On information and belief as alleged in the Complaint ¶¶37-41 the Airport imposed 

conditions on Epic that it did not impose on other licensees. Epic, however, has not had the 

opportunity to question the Airport under oath on this matter. But, in any case, the burden is on 

the Airport to show that they treated Epic the same as other licensees in compliance with their 

assurance not to discriminate. 

Finally, none of the reported FAR Rule 16 cases cited by the Airport are in any way 

relevant to the case at hand. Indeed there is no reported case wherein a licensee that clearly met 
REPLY Page 9 of 11

the minimum standards imposed by an Airport, had its license revoked on the mere pretense that 

it did not answer the Airport’s questions in a timely manner. The record is clear that Epic

provided all the requested information in a timely manner but the Airport kept moving the goal 

posts. The Airport never treating any other licensee in this manner and no FAR Rule 16 case 

ever addressed this type of discrimination.

5. This paragraph and Exhibit I, supra, may be admissions by the Airport of its true motive. 

Epic initially sent a cease and desist letter to Dennis Heap, Front Range Airport Manager 

(attached to the Airport’s exhibit) after it was learned that Heap anonymously sent the alleged 

chronology to Epic’s new landlord at Centennial Airport. In retaliation for the cease and desist 

letter, Mr. Heap circulated his false charges to others including Mr. Olislagers. This required 

Mark May to respond as he did. But throughout the Airport litigation, they never said it was 

about Mark May. They always said it was about failure to provide information in a timely 

manner. See the Airport attorney’s letter of August 26th, Exhibit 11. There is no mention of 

Mark May among the six issues listed. Which story is the truth?

6. Or is the real truth that this entire action was trumped up in retaliation for threatening Mr.

Olislagers friend Dennis Heap with a defamation lawsuit? But one thing is certain. The Airport

admits is action is in part retaliation for Epic’s assertion of its rights under the U.S. and Colorado 

Constitutions, under Colorado law and under the FARs.
REPLY Page 10 of 11

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2012.

__________________________ ____________

Robert B. Schultz 

Schultz & Associates LLC

9710 W.82nd Ave.

Arvada, CO 80005

Tel. (303) 456 5565

Fax. (303) 456 5575

Attorney for Complainant
REPLY Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing on the following person at the following 

by email:

Brian A. Magoon, #9072

Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, P.C.

I 099 18th Street, Suite 2600

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: 303-297-2600

Facsimile: 303-297-2750

E-mail: bmagoon@rwolaw.com

DATED this 22st day of February, 2012.

Robert B. Schultz 

Schultz & Associates LLC

9710 W.82nd Ave.

Arvada, CO 80005

Tel. (303) 456 5565

Fax. (303) 456 5575

Attorney for Complainant