1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE 

WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY 

THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, 

CALIFORNIA 

FAA Docket No. 16-02-08 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO FAA’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

1. The City of Santa Monica, California (“the City”) moves, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

16.11(a), for an extension of time to respond to the FAA’s Order to Show Cause in the abovecaptioned matter. 

2. On March 26, 2008, the FAA “direct[ed] the City of Santa Monica to show cause why the 

FAA should not supplement the existing Part 16 investigation with the facts pertaining to the 

adopted Ordinance and expedite said investigation and issuance of the initial determination 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.11.” Order to Show Cause at 8. The FAA gave the City ten (10) days 

from the date of the Order to respond to its Order to Show Cause. Id. 

3. The City requests an additional 20 days to respond to the Order to Show Cause, or until 

April 25, 2008. A 20-day extension is appropriate, because under 14 C.F.R. § 16.103 a person 

has 30 days to submit a response when the FAA orders an investigation. Here, the Order to 

Show Cause is tantamount to a new investigation, because the 2002 investigation has been 

dormant for over five years. Accordingly, the City should be given 30 days to respond, as it 

would under 14 C.F.R. § 16.103. 
2

4. Additionally, adequately responding to the FAA’s Order to Show Cause will take the 

City longer than ten days because, since, apparently, this will be the only opportunity for the City 

to respond before the rendering of a Director’s Determination, the City will be required not only 

to fully brief the matter for the FAA but also to submit all of its extensive documentary evidence 

in support of its position. Ten days is simply an inadequate amount of time for the City to 

respond to the FAA’s Order and constitutes a denial of “due process.” 

5. Finally, an extension of time is necessary since the City is submitting a Freedom of 

Information Request (“FOIA”) to be handled on an expedited basis with regard to information in 

the possession of the FAA relevant to this Proceeding, including the Computer Model revealed 

by the FAA for the first time at the Santa Monica City Council meeting on March 25, 2008. It 

would unduly prejudice the City, if it was required to submit its Response prior to obtaining the 

information requested. 

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2008: 

s/ Arthur P. Berg 

Arthur P. Berg 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

730 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 

New York, New York 10019 

Thomas R. Devine 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 905 

Washington, D.C. 20036 
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time 

to Respond to FAA’s Order to Show Cause on the following party at the following address by 

email only: 

Kelvin L. Solco 

Acting Director 

Office of Airport Safety and Standards 

kelvin.l.solco@faa.gov 

Dated this 28th day of March, 2008: 

s/ M. Brooke McKinley 

M. Brooke McKinley