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) Den ied. 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 22 nd

. (f) Admit. (g) Den ied. T he letter , which speaks for itself, simply reiterates a request made at the April
20 th meeting. Moreover, the letter neither has the correct meeting date

- it was April 20 th not April 19 th

– and it falsely states that the Airport was first made aware of the change of owne rship on by Amore’s letter of April 22 nd

. Yet in paragraph (c) the Airport admits they were made aware of the change in ownership by eh new application and at the April 20 th meeting. In fact, Colorado public records indicate that the change of ownership took place on April 13 th , a weekREPLY 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) Den ied. T he Airport email , which speaks fo r 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 15 th

. Other than that, t he letter speaks for itself. (j) Denied. With its letter of July 29 th
, Epic fully responded to the purported Notice of Termination

. The July 29 th letter from Epic and the July 15 th 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 9 th and that it set a deadline of August 21 st but deny that there were deficiencies in Epic’s July 29 th response to the Airport’s July 15 th letter. The July 29 th l etter from Epic and the July 15 th letter from the Airport to which it replied speak for themselves. (l) Denied. Epic tried to provide the additional information requested by August 21 st but on three occasions the Airport refused to let them speak

– on Aug ust 11 th , 15 th and 16 th . 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 n ever p rovided 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 n ever 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 C omplainant, Epic Aviation Services LLC was and al ways 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 an y commercial aeronautical activities performed by Epic were not approved by the Airport. 3.(a)(1) Den ied. In fact, the Airport admits it received notification of such change on April 20 th and again on April 22 nd

.REPLY Page 4 of 11 ( 2 ) Den ied

. AUS ¶12 does not require that information be provided by any deadline and t he written correspondence in evidence proves that Epic provided timely respon ses to each request for additional information until they were prevented from providing additional information. (3) and (4) Den ied. N owhere 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 11 th hearing to answer an y questions the Airport might have had. Complaint ¶17. (5) Denied. It is undisputed that up until the August 11 th hearing, when the Airport began refusing to let Epic speak, Epic provided all the information requested. But n owhere in the AUS, the Minimum Standards or the Rules and Regulations is the Airport given authority to approve or disapprove of licensee ’s management . N or 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
20 th and 22 nd

. (c) Denied. On August 11 th , 15 th and 16 th , Epic tried to answer all the Airpor t’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 Airpor t’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 Epi c ’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 e mployee. 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. T he 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 standard s 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., 86 9 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 fie ld 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 n owhere 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 obtainREPLY Page 6 of 11 millions of dollars in fundi ng, 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 b usiness 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 air port access (e) Denied. While t he 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 pr ivileges 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 11 th 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 speak s 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 provi de information as a default. But the information provide d by Epic is in writing, is in evidence, and it speaks for itself.REPLY Page 7 of 11 (i) Denied. Epic tried to provide al l the information requested at t h e August 11 th hearing and again on August 15 th and 16 th but th e 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 14 th 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 howeve r, 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 t he 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 inf ormation, 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 skill s 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. R osell 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 recommend s 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. R osell was identified as the owner and manager. Her resume was provided to the Airport with the July 29 th response to the Airport’s July 15 th inquiry. Exhibit 8. About Ms. Rosell, that letter said: “Della Rosell

– Owner. Ms. Rosell does not perform any air craft 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. Wh en 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. Ros ell serves a “paper” role only.” T he 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 mot ive 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, t he burden is on the Airport to sh ow 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 ca se wherein a licensee that clearly metREPLY Page 9 of 11 the minimum standards imposed by an Airport, had its license revoke d on t h e mere pretense that it did not answer the Airport’s questions in a timely manner. The record is c l ear that Epic provide d all the re quested information in a timely manner bu t the Airpor t kep t mo vin g the goal posts. The Airport never treating any other l icensee in this manner and no FAR R u le 16 case ever address ed this type of discrimination

. 5. This paragraph and Exhibit I, supra, may be admission s 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 through out 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 26 th , 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 r ights under the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions, under Co lorado law and under the FARs.REPLY Page 10 of 11 DATED this 2 2 nd day of February , 20 1 2

.

__________________________ ____________ Robert B. Schultz Schultz & Associates LLC 9710 W.82 nd Ave. Arvada, CO 80005 Tel. (3 03) 456 5565 Fax. (303) 456 5575 Attorney for ComplainantREPLY 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 ema i l: Brian A. Magoon, #9072 Rob inson 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 2 2 st day of February , 201 2

.

Robert B. Schultz Schultz & Associates LLC 9710 W.82 nd Ave. Arvada, CO 80005 Tel. (303) 456 5565 Fax. (303) 456 5575 Attorney for Complainant