CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I here1 y certify that on this 21st day ofOctober 2015, I caused the Respondent's Oppositionto Complainant's Motion For Leave To File Sur-Rebuttal 

### in the matter ofPro-Flight Aviation, Inc. v. City ofRenton Municipal Airport, Docket# 16-15-03 to be served by e-mail upon the folloMling: Federal Aviation Administration Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration Room921 800 Independence Ave, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 (Telephone 202-267-3473) e-mail: 9-A WA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov Bernard A. Paholke Vice-President Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. 750 W. Perimeter Road Unit 1 Renton, WA 98057 (Telephone 425-228-9510) e-mail: bhk@lopal.com

**~ ~**  

# j 

# I 

# · t-- $

**A_ k_**  **~** Zanetta L. F



## on~es WSBA 9604 or Assistant City Attorney ty ofRenton City Attorney's Office 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Phone: (425) 430-6486 

## IFax: (425) 430- 6498 e-mail: zfontes@rentonwa.gov

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIDNGTON, D.C. PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. ) ) Comp ainant ) ) v. ) Docket No. 16-15-03 ) CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON )



# R~po **dent** 

# !

**~SPONDENT'S** OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REBUTTAL Respo dent City ofRenton, Washington ("City") submits this opposition to the motion of Complainantrro-Flight Aviation, Inc. ("PFA") for leave to file an unauthorized Sur-rebuttal to the City's Re uttal ("Rebuttal") to PFA's Reply to the Answer ("Reply"). The Sur-Rebuttal addresses onl} one issue, the City's affirmative defense that PFA lacks standing to continue this Part 16 action because it is no longer "directly and substantially affected" by the alleged acts of non-compliance with the federal grant assurances, as required by 14 C.F.R. §16.23(a), due to its 

### failure to extt d the term 

### ofits Operating Penni! beyond July 31, 2015. Answer, , 12 & Affirmative

**efense** 7. PF A admitted in its Reply that it had not renewed its Operating Permit, claimed it was an "oversight," and devoted nearly 2 pages ofthe Reply (pp. 18-19) to a factual 

### and legal

### j



# usti **cation** ofits standing to bring this action notwithstanding this significant oversight.

**Sp cific~ly,.** PFA

**ar~ued** in the

**~ep~y** (pp.5, 18), and repeats this

**-~gument ~ow,**  that the new permit applicatiOn requrrements bemg rmposed on PFA lack any leg1t1mate busmess d I · 1 1· ·



# ~ · · · thi d. purpose an are srmp y reta tation 10r mstitutmg s procee mg.The Cr y, pursuant to Rule 16.23(f), filed a Rebuttal explaining (at p.l8) why a new application wr in fact

**needed~** "to allowthe City sufficienttime 

### to reevaluate a sub-lessee's proposed use rf the sub-leasedpremises and determine whether it is in the Allport'sbest interest to renew an er sting Permit on the prior terms and conditions or impose new or different terms." As further ex, lained by the City, the Airport would be remiss ifit failed to carefully evaluate PFA'sproposrl in its new Permit application to continue its current operations on its subleased property whef PF A has claimed throughout this proceeding that its business will be "greatly diminished"

**r:"~y** not be "economically sustainable" or "remain viable" ifit is not giventhe lease onthe I:nt760 Parcel. See Complaint, 1Mj45, 52; PF A Answerto Respondent's Motion for S 

## I ary Judgment, pp. 4; see generally Motion for Preliminary Injunction (alleging irreparable harm to business due to eviction from the 760 Parcel). More



## mportantly, with PFA's admission that it did not timely renew its Operating Permit, the



# cal facts needed to decide the standing issue have been established and the issue is ripe for decision by the FAA. The fact that the Airport has nowrequested a business plan from PF A as rnnittedby the City Leasing Policies (see Complaint, Ex. 5, Leasing Policies §5.2), the onl l new factual or legal argument inthe Sur-Rebuttal, is tangential to this key fact. Further, noJ thstanding PFA's insistence inthe Reply that it does not understand what additional information or proofofprofitability could be submitted inresponse to this allegedly burdensome + uest, PFA submitted the requested business plan containing such information
even before its Motion was submitted. 

### I With

**~e** standing issue fully briefed by both parties inthe pleadings allowed by the Part 16 rules, PFAj has failed to demonstrate the "good cause" required by Rule 16.23(j) for allowing
a supplement to the authorized pleadings and PF A's motion to file a Sur-Reply should therefore

2be denied. Tlie FAA has everything it needs to consider the competing arguments onthe effect ofPFA's lack ofa valid Operating Permit. Ifthe AA nevertheless accepts this unauthorized supplemental filing based on a specific finding of"gldcause", then the City should be allowedto respond and submitthe final filing as contemplated l uy the Part 16 rules that give the Respondent the last opportunity to be heard. For thJ foregoing reasons, PFA's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Rebuttal to Respondent's Rebuttal shoutd be denied. Alternatively, ifPFA's supplemental pleading is accepted, the City should similarly be permitted to file a supplement to its pleadings to rebut the PFA Sur-Rebuttal. In such event, the City asks that the due date for such submission be no earlier than November 11, 2015, as counsel for the City will be attending a business related conference in Washington, D.C. during t i week ofNovember 2, 2015
.



# . 51' Dated this 

### I <Iay ofOctober, 2015. Respectfully Submitted:



# C). **~ fer**  **-/~ ¢;)** 

**&~ ~**  ' tta L. Fontes, WSBA # 9604 ssistant City Attorney



### 3