UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIDNGTON

DC ) PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION,
INC.,

) Complainant

) ) v.

) ) CITY OF RENTON,

) Respondent.

) ORDER FAA Docket
No. 16-15-03 On February

17, counsel

for Respondent,

City of Renton, filed

a Motion under

14 CFR § 16.19(e), requesting

a 120-day extension

of time

to file its Answer

to the Complaint. Counsel advised that the Respondent
needs additional
time for several reasons including: Understaffing

and workload

at the City Attorney's office and
at the Renton Municipal Airport, which hampers

the Respondent's ability

to fmd and collect supporting documentation

to submit with the Answer; Uncertainty regarding opportunity

and timing

to secure testimony

of two former airport employees

who joined
the Federal Aviation Administration,

which may require other means

to obtain admissible evidence;

and Ongoing negotiations between Respondent, Complainant,

and The Boeing Company, which may resolve
the Part
16 Complaint. On February

23, the Complainant

filed an Answer

to the Motion consenting

to

a 30-day extension

but objecting

to

a longer extension.

The Complainant's principal argument

is that any delay

in this proceeding

is prejudicial

to it because

the Complainant
could irreparably

lose its tie-down positions

on the disputed airport parcel, which

is subject

to

a lease agreement between

the Respondent

and The Boeing Company.Part16isintendedtoexpeditesubstantiallythehandlinganddispositionofairportrelatedcomplaints.SeeRulesofPracticeforFederally-AssistedAirports(RetrospectiveRegulatoryReview)FinalRule,78Fed.Reg.56135(Sept.12,2013);RulesofPracticeforFederally-AssistedAirportEnforcementProceedingsFinalRule,61Fed.Reg.53998(Oct.16,1996).Partiesmayfileawrittenmotionforanextensionoftime.14CFR§16.19(e).TheDirectormayissueanorderextendinganytimeperiodprescribedwherenecessaryorappropriateforafairandcompleteconsiderationofmattersbeforetheagency.14CFR.§l6.ll(a).TheDirectorhasweighedallargumentstoarriveatthedecisioninthisOrder.TheDirectorfinds:I.AMotionistheappropriatemeanstorequestanextensionoftimetofile.14CFR§16.19(e).PartiesmayfileanAnswerinSupportorOppositiontoaMotion.14CFR.§16.19(c).Theseproceduralrequirementshavebeenmet2.AlthoughtheRespondentprovidesadequatereasonsjustifyinganextensionoftimetofileanAnswer,theComplainant'sargumentofprejudiceresultingfromdelayispersuasive.3.TheDirectorrecognizesthatanextensionof120daysisnotwarranted,butanextensionof45daysisreasonableunderthesecircumstances.Thisextensionwillresultinabriefdelay,butitbalancestheinterestsofeachpartyandmaintainsfairnessinthisproceeding.Accordingly,Respondentisherebygranteda45-dayextensionoftimeinwhichtofileitsAnswertotheComplaint.TheAnswerisnowdueonApril17,2015.ComplainantmayfileaReplywithintendaysofthedateofserviceofthe Answer.RandallS.FiertzDirector,OfficeofAirportComplianceandManagementAnalysisDateCERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY

that on March

(

\

, 2015,

I caused

to be emailed

and placed in the United States mail (first class, post'age paid)

or personally delivered

a true copy
of the foregoing ORDER addressed

to: Complainant Bernard

A. Paholke Vice President PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION,

INC. 750 W. Perimeter

Rd. Unit

I Renton,

W A 98057 proflightaviationinc@yahoo.com Counsel

for Respondent Zanetta

L. Fontes Senior Assistant
City Attorney CITY OF RENTON 1055 South Grady Way Renton,

W A 98057 zfontes@rentonwa.gov Hand-Delivered

to: FAA Part
16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office

of Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis

(A CO-l 00) i I

..

·

, I,

k

!

I

l .. . )( **;7~ ~·** 

'r'
L- L--'

., v

1 /l1l

'

--- Clauaia Roberts Office

of Airport Compliance