FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

AUG 2 8 2009 

)RT/ENV«DNli/ 

I?^ 

\yj 

AIRPORT/ENVWJNMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 

SKYDIVE SACRAMENTO 

Complainant, 

vs. Docket No. 16-09-09 

THE CITY OF LINCOLN, CALIFORNL\ 

Respondent 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION 

TO EXTEND TIME 

NOW COMES Complainant, Skydive Sacramento, by and through its attorney 

and for its Response to Respondent's Motion to Extend Time states as follows: 

1. As stated by Respondent in its motion, the FAA served its Notice of 

Docketing by mail on August 7,2009. Respondent's answer is now due on August 31, 

2009. 

2. As outlined in the Complaint and attached exhibits, Respondent has had 

counsel, Timothy Hayes, working on this matter on behalf of Respondent since at least 

January of this year. Mr. Hayes is copied in the August 25, 2009 Motion transmittal 

letter from Respondent's counsel to the FAA, and is thus still involved in representing 

Respondent in this matter. 

3. The exhibits (6, 8,11-14 and 16) attached to the Complaint reflect many 

of the letters and the emails exchanged between counsel for the City, Timothy Hayes, and 

for Skydive Sacramento discussing the specific issues and areas of disagreement between 

• — I 

- -I 

— H 
the parties and in hopes of finding a resolution to the issues of airport access that lead to 

the Complaint. 

4. The exhibits attached to the Complaint show that Skydive Sacramento 

advised the City of Lincoln that a 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint would be forthcoming 

should the City be unwilling to negotiate terms of the proposed lease to remove 

requirements for such things as insurance that was unavailable at any price. 

5. As a result. Respondent and its counsel was in no way surprised by the 

Complaint and had, in fact, been aware of and working on the legal issues contained in it 

for several months. 

6. As set forth in the affidavit of the owner of Skydive Sacramento, attached 

as exhibit 1 to the Complaint, Complainant is undergoing loss of revenue every day that it 

is prevented from landing its skydive customers on the Lincoln Airport due to the delays 

and costs involved with transporting its customers via ground vehicle from the current 

off-airport drop zone back to the airport where they can repack their parachutes and 

reboard the jump airplane. 

7. The matter of Complainant having access to a drop zone on the Lincoln 

Airport has been dragging on for nearly two years. The original application was made in 

September 2007. Respondent has a record of delaying actions to prevent Complainant 

from operating on Airport property, including delaying for seven months before even 

responding to Complainant's original application to for a drop zone on the airport 

(Complaint Exhibits 1 and 28), delaying sending out a draft lease imtil immediately prior 

to Christmas 2008 and then, with the transmittal, telling Skydive Sacramento that the 

City will be unable to even discuss the lease due to the holidays. Then, after the City 
agreed to draft a new proposed lease, taking over two months to do so while making no 

significant changes. The City is aware that Complainant is a small business with limited 

financial resources and has demonstrated that by dragging its feet as long as possible at 

each stage of the drop zone approval process it seeks to exhaust Complainant's money 

and make the matter go away by forcing Complainant out of business. 

8. City, having had counsel working on the issues herein for over six months, 

is not prejudiced by complying with the requirements set forth in 14 CFR 16.23(d), 

whereas Complainant, hanging on by its financial fingernails, is. 

9. When the FAA establishes regulations it is assumed that they are not 

arbitrary and capricious and compliance is required. Granting an exception to a 

regulation should only be done in cases where significant need or hardship in compUance 

is demonstrated. 

10. 14 CFR Part 16 is a self-contained part of the Code of Federal Regulations 

setting forth the procedures to govern all proceedings involving Federally-assisted 

airports, 14 CFR Part 16.1(a). There are no other parts of the CFRs that relate to time for 

compliance with requirements of 14 CFR Part 16 proceedings. 

11. 14 CFR Part 16.11 (a) allows the Director to take action to fiilfill the 

purposes of this part including the extension of any time period where necessary or 

appropriate for a fair and complete hearing of matters before the agency. There is no 

other reason for an extension to be granted under the Part. Respondent, having had 

counsel on this matter for several months, has failed to show how an extension is 

necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete hearing of matters or why it cannot 

comply with the requirements of filing its answer within the time required. Respondent 
has not shown that records were lost or that a key person suffered a serious illness. 

Respondent has not shown any compelling reason why it caimot comply with what is 

presumed to be a reasonable period of time for an answer under the CFR. Respondent 

has not shown that it is prejudiced by some arbitrary or unreasonable component in the 

timing requirement of the CFR. To the contrary. Complainant is prejudiced by the delay 

sought by Respondent. Respondent has not even offered to compensate Complainant for 

the costs it will suffer for yet more delay in resolution of this matter simply for the 

convenience of Respondent. The City's action seeking delay for a new period of time 

that is in itself longer than the time prescribed under 14 CFR Part 16 for filing an answer 

is yet fiirther evidence that the City is continuing its efforts to force this small company 

out of business by applying any pressure it can while utterly refusing to negotiate airport 

access. 

For the above reasons. Complainant respectfully requests that Respondent's 

motion be denied, or that if not denied, the extension of time granted be only for one or 

two days so that this matter may proceed with all due speed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

Attorney for Complainant 

August 27,2009 By: 

Richai ^ Durden ?29fR^ 

27987Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

(616)901-65156 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify in accordance with 14 CFR Part 16.15(a) that today I served the 

foregoing Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time on the 

following persons at the following addresses by United States Postal Service Express 

Mail: 

Scott P. Lewis 

Anderson & Kreiger, LLP 

One Canal Park, Suite 200 

Cambridge, MA. 02141 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Dated this 27* day of August, 2009