FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C . 

### AU G 2 8 200 9 )RT/ENV«DNli / 

# I? ^ \y j AIRPORT/ENVWJNMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 SKYDIV E SACRAMENT O

Complainant , vs . Docke t No . 16-09-0 9 TH E CIT Y O F LINCOLN , CALIFORNL \

Responden t COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS E T O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N

T O EXTEN D TIM E NO W COME S Complainant , Skydiv e Sacramento , b y an dthroug h it s attorne y an dfo r it s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Exten dTime state s a s follows : 1 . A s state db y Responden t i n it s motion , th e FAA serve dit s Notic e o f Docketin g b y mai l on Augus t 7,2009 . Respondent' s answer i s no w du e o

n Augus t 31 , 2009 . 2 . A s outline di n th e Complain t an dattache dexhibits , Responden t ha s ha d counsel , Timoth y Hayes , workin g o n thi s matte r on behal f o f Responden t

sinc e a t leas t Januar y o f thi s year . Mr . Haye s i s copie di n th e Augus t 25 , 200 9 Motio n transmitta l lette r fromRespondent' s counse l t o th e FAA , an di s thu s stil l involve di n representin g Responden t

i n thi s matter . 3 . Th e exhibit s (6 , 8,11-1 4 an d16 ) attache dt o th e Complain t reflec t man y of th e letter s an dth e email s exchange dbetwee n counse l fo r th e City , Timoth y Hayes , an d fo r Skydiv e Sacrament o discussin g th e specifi c issue s an darea s o f disagreemen t

betwee n • — I

- - I

—Hth e partie s an di n hope s o f findin g aresolutio n t o th e issue s o f airpor t acces s tha t

leadt o th e Complaint . 4 . Th e exhibit s attache dt o th e Complain t sho w that

Skydiv e Sacrament o advise dth e Cit

y o f Lincol n tha t

a1 4 CF RPart 1 6 Complain t

woul db e forthcomin g shoul dth e Cit

y b e unwillin g t o negotiat e term s o f th e propose dleas e t o remov e requirement s fo

r suc h thing s a s insuranc e tha t was unavailabl e a

t any price . 5 . A s aresult . Responden t an dit s counse l wa s in n o wa y surprise db y th e Complain t

an dhad , i n fact , bee n awar e o f an dworkin g on th e legal issue s containe din i t for severa l months . 6 . A s set

fort h i n th e affidavit

o f th e owner

o f Skydiv e Sacramento , attache d a s exhibi t 1 t o th e Complaint , Complainan t i s undergoin g los s o f

revenu e ever

y da y tha t i t i s prevente dfromlandin g it s skydiv e customer s on th e Lincol n Airpor t du e t o th e delay s an dcost s involve dwit

h transportin g it s customer s vi agroun dvehicl e fromth e current off-airpor t dro p zon e bac k

t o th e airpor

t wher e the y can repac k

thei r parachute s an d reboar dth e jum p airplane . 7 . Th e matte r

o f Complainan t

havin g acces s t o adro p zon e o n th e Lincol n Airpor t ha s bee n draggin g on fo

r nearl y tw o years . Th e original applicatio n wa s mad e i n September

2007 . Responden t

ha s arecordo f

delayin g action s t o preven t Complainan t fromoperatin g o n Airpor

t property , includin g delayin g for seve n month s before eve n respondin g t o Complainant' s original applicatio n t o for adro p zon e o n th e airpor t (Complain t

Exhibit s 1 an d28) , delayin g sendin g ou t adraf t leas e imti l immediatel y prio r t o Christma s 200 8 an dthen , wit h th e transmittal , tellin g Skydiv e Sacrament o tha t th e Cit y wil l b e unabl e t o eve n discus s th e leas e du e t o th e holidays . Then , afte r th e Cit yagree dt o draf t ane w propose dlease , takin g ove r tw o month s t o d o s o whil e makin g n o significant changes . Th e Cit

y i s aware tha t

Complainan t

i s asmal l busines s wit

h limite d financial resource s an dha s demonstrate dthat b y draggin g it s feet

a s lon g a s possibl e a

t eac h stag e o f

th e dro p zon e approval proces s i t seek s t o exhaus t

Complainant' s mone y an dmak e th e matte r

g o awa y b y forcin g Complainan t

ou t o f business . 8 . City , havin g ha dcounse l workin g on th e issue s herei n fo r ove r si x months , i s not prejudice db y complyin g wit h th e requirement s set

fort h i n 1 4 CF

R16.23(d) , wherea s Complainant , hangin g on b y it s financial fingernails , is . 9 . Whe n th e FAA establishe s regulation s i t i s assume dtha t

the y ar e no t arbitrar y an dcapriciou s an dcomplianc e i s required . Grantin g a n exceptio n t o a regulatio n shoul donl y b e don e i n case s wher e significant nee do r hardshi p i n compUanc e i s demonstrated . 10 . 1 4 CF

RPar t 1 6 i s aself-containe dpar t o f th e Cod e o f

Federal Regulation s settin g fort

h th e procedure s t o gover

n al l proceeding s involvin g Federally-assiste d airports , 1 4 CF

RPart 16.1(a) . Ther e are n o other part s o f th e CFR s that

relat e t o tim e fo

r complianc e wit

h requirement s o f

1 4 CF RPar t 1 6 proceedings . 11 . 1 4 CF

RPart 16.1 1 (a ) allow s th e Directo r t o tak e actio n t o fiilfill th e purpose s o f

thi s part includin g th e extensio n o f any tim e perio dwhere necessar y or appropriat e fo

r afai r an dcomplet e hearin g o f

matter s befor

e th e agency . There i s n o othe r reaso n for

a n extensio n t o b e grante dunde r th e Part . Respondent , havin g ha d counse l o n thi s matte r

fo r several months , ha s faile dt o sho w ho w a n extensio n i s necessary or

appropriat e fo

r afai r an dcomplet e hearin g o f

matter s or

why i t canno t compl y wit

h th e requirement s o f

filin g it s answer

withi n th e tim e required . Responden tha s no t show n tha t

record s wer e los t

o r that ake y perso n suffere daseriou s illness . Responden t

ha s no t show n an y compellin g reaso n wh y i t caimo t compl y with wha

t i s presume dt o b e areasonabl e perio do f tim e for a n answer under th e CFR . Responden t ha s no t show n that

i t i s prejudice db y some arbitrar y o r unreasonabl e componen t

i n th e timin g requiremen t

o f th e CFR . T o th e contrary . Complainan t i s prejudice db y th e delay sought b y Respondent . Responden t ha s no t eve n offere dt o compensat e Complainan t fo r th e cost s i t

wil l suffe r fo r ye t mor e dela

y i n resolutio n o f

thi s matte r

simpl y fo r th e convenienc e o f

Respondent . Th e City' s actio n seekin g dela y fo r ane w perio do f

tim e that i s i n itsel f

longer than th e tim e prescribe dunde r 1 4 CF RPart 1 6 fo r filing a n answer i s ye t fiirther evidenc e tha t

th e Cit y i s continuin g it s effort s t o forc e thi s smal l company ou t o f busines s b y applyin g an y pressur e i t ca n whil e utterl y refusin g t o negotiat e airpor t access . Fo r

th e abov e reasons . Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t

Respondent' s motio n b e denied , o r

tha t i f no t denied , th e extensio n o f

tim e grante db e onl y fo

r on e or tw o day s s o that

thi s matte r

may procee dwit

h al l du e speed . Respectfull y submitted , Richar dJ . Durden , Attorne y a t La w Attorne y fo

r Complainan t Augus t 27,200 9 By : Richai ^ Durde n ?29fR ^ 27987Richmon dHil l Roa d Conifer , Colorad o 8043 3 (616)901-6515 6CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y i n accordanc e wit

h 1 4 CF RPar t 16.15(a ) that

today I serve dth e foregoin g Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n fo r Extensio n o f

Time on th e followin g person s a

t th e followin g addresse s b y Unite dState s Postal Servic e Expres s Mail : Scot t P . Lewi s Anderso n & Kreiger , LLP On e Canal Park , Suite 20 0 Cambridge , MA . 0214 1 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l FAA Part 1 6 Airpor

t Proceeding s Docke t AGC-61 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Date dthi s 27 * da

y o f August , 200 9