UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

Jet Center Partners, LLC Complainant,



### v. County ofMontrose, Colorado Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER FAA Docket No. 16-15-11

On August 26, FAA docketed the Complaint filed on behalfofJet Center Partners, LLC (Complainant) against the County ofMontrose, Colorado (Respondent) under the Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, Title 14 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations part 16 ( 14 CFR. Part 16) in the above-captioned Docket.
On

**Sept~~mber** 17, FAA docketed Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.
On September 28, FAA docketed a Motion to Extend Deadline to Reply from Complainant requesting until October 16 to submit its Reply. The Complainant states that it needs additional time to evaluate the new information submitted by the Respondent in its Motion for Summary Judgment 

### in order to determine how it affects the pendency ofthe Part 16 Complaint.
On Sept ember 30, FAA docketed Respondent's Response in Partial Opposition to Complainant's Motion to Extend Deadline to Reply. The Respondent does not oppose a shorter e ·xtension of 10 days, but contends a 20-day extension is excessive under the circums1ances. The Respondent claims that the "new information" submitted in the Motion f or Summary Judgment is neither voluminous, nor complex and thatthe Complainant did notjustify its Motion otherthan to seek more time to evaluate the new informalion. The Respondent contends that by allowing an additional 20 days for respons(:will simply delay resolution ofits Motion for Summary Judgment.
Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. [See, 

### Rules of Practicefor Federally-AssistedAirpor t Enforcement Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996)

.] The rule provides that
an extension oftime may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency. See 14 CFR § 16.11(a).Part 16 provides that a party filing a motion "should attempt to obtain the concurrence of the opposing party." See 14 CFR 

### § 16.19(e). The Complainant's Mot ion does not explain whether it attempted to obtain Respondent's concurrence for an additional20 day time period for filing its Reply to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. Since it is not clear, the Director urges the parties in the future to communicate to attempt to obtain the concurrence ofthe other side when seeking extensions oftime. The Director has weighed all the elements at issue, including the fact that 14 CFR Part 16 is an expedited procedure and the respective positions oftheparties, to arrive at the decision in this Order. The Director finds that a short extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Complainant is hereby granted an extension oftime until October 9, in which to file its Reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Within 30 days ofthe date the Reply to the Motion is due, the Director may issue an Order disposing ofthe Motion for Summary Judgment.



## ()f.. 

# 1.1 2tJ() Randall S. Fiertz Date I Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 1, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to:

Counsel for Complainant
Leona rd D. Kirsch Shelley 

### A Ewalt McBreen & Kopko 500 North Broadway, Suite 129 Jericho, NY 11753

Counsel for Respondent
Bobbee J. Musgrave Stephen D. Rynerson Bryan Cave LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 41 00 Denver, CO 80203-4541 Carolyn Clawson County Attorney County ofMontrose, Colorado 161 S. Townsend Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401
Hand-Delivered to:
FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis (A CO-l00)

# ~J;tu__- ClaudiaRoberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis