CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I here1y certify that on this 21st day of October 2015, I caused the Respondent's 

Opposition to Complainant's Motion For Leave To File Sur-Rebuttal in the matter of Pro-Flight 

Aviation, Inc. v. City of Renton 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 W A-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

Bernard A. Paholke 

Vice-President 

Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. 

750 W. Perimeter Road Unit 1 

Renton, W A 98057 

(Telephone 425-228-951 0) 

e-mail: bhk@lopal.com ~ ~ j 

I ·t--$ A_k_~ Zanetta L. F on~es WSBA 9604 

or Assistant City Attorney 

ty of Renton 

City Attorney's Office 

1055 South Grady Way 

Renton, W A 98057 

Phone: ( 425) 430-6486 I Fax: ( 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 of Renton, 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 of its 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 of the Reply (pp. 18-19) to a factual 

and legal j usti cation of its 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 PF A 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 allow the City sufficient time to reevaluate a sub-lessee's 

proposed use rf the sub-leased premises and determine whether it is in the Allport's best 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 if it failed to carefully evaluate 

PFA's proposrl 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" if it is not given the 

lease on the I:nt 760 Parcel. See Complaint, 1Mj45, 52; PF A Answer to 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 now requested a business plan 

from PF A as rnnitted by the City Leasing Policies (see Complaint, Ex. 5, Leasing Policies 

§5.2), the onl l new factual or legal argument in the Sur-Rebuttal, is tangential to this key fact. 

Further, noJ thstanding PFA's insistence in the Reply that it does not understand what 

additional information or proof of profitability could be submitted in response to this allegedly 

burdensome + uest, PF A submitted the requested business plan containing such information 

even before its Motion was submitted. 

I 

With ~e standing issue fully briefed by both parties in the pleadings allowed by the Part 

16 rules, PFAjhas 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 

2 
be denied. Tlie FAA has everything it needs to consider the competing arguments on the effect 

of PF A's lack of a valid Operating Permit. 

If the AA nevertheless accepts this unauthorized supplemental filing based on a specific 

finding of"gld cause", then the City should be allowed to respond and submit the final filing as 

contemplated luy 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 ti week ofNovember 2, 2015 . 

. 51' 

Dated this I <Iay of October, 2015. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

C).~ fer -/~¢;) &~ ~ 

' tta L. Fontes, WSBA # 9604 

ssistant City Attorney 

3