UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC., ) 

Complainant ) 

) 

~ ) 

) 

CITY OF RENTON, ) 

Respondent ) 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-03 

On July 17,2015, counsel for Complainant, Pro-Flight Aviation, filed a motion for 

preliminary injunction to enjoin Respondent, City of Renton, from evicting Complainant 

from 9 aircraft tie-down spots it currently leases from Respondent. On August 7, 2015, 

Respondent filed an answer to the motion arguing that the FAA lacks authority under 14 

CFR Part 16 to grant the relief requested and, alternatively, that Complainant has not 

proffered evidence sufficient to justify such relief. 

Background 

On January 28,2015, Complainant filed a Complaint with the FAA under the Rules of 

Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings (14 CFR Part 16). 

Complainant alleges Respondent violated Grant Assurances 5 (Preserving Rights and 

Powers), 22 (Economic Discrimination), 23 (Exclusive Rights), 24 (Fee and Rental 

Structure), and 29 (Airport Layout Plan). Complainant alleges Respondent unjustly 

discriminated against Complainant by awarding a lease of two airport parcels (760 and 770 

parcels) to the Boeing Company (Boeing). 

Complainant is a full-service fixed based operator (FBO) at Renton Municipal Airport 

(RNT) and operates its business on property leased from Respondent (750 parcel). Since 

April 2013, Complainant has leased from Respondent 9 aircraft tied own spaces, which it 

uses to park aircraft used for its flight school and aircraft rental businesses, on the 760 

parcel. Parcel 760 had been leased by another FBO that ceased operations at RNT, and 

Complainant had expressed interest in leasing the entire parcel. In August 2013, 

Respondent leased parcels 760 and 770 to Boeing. Because Boeing did not have 

immediate need for the parcels, Respondent continued to lease the tie downs to 

Complainant and other parties and credited the rental income to Boeing. This arrangement 
was to have lasted through March 31,2015, but has now been extended to September 14, 

2015. 1 

Respondent alleges that Complainant currently is providing FBO services at RNT without a 

valid operating permit, in violation of airport rules, because it failed to renew the permit 

that expired on July 31, 2015. 

On July 17, 2015, Complainant filed this motion for preliminary injunction arguing that the 

imminent termination of its tiedown lease justifies the FAA enjoining that termination to 

maintain the status quo while it resolves the substantive issues of the Complaint. 

Respondent filed its response to the motion on August 7, 2015, arguing that the Part 16 

procedures do not contemplate extraordinary interim relief, and alternatively that 

Complainant has not met the standard for such relief. 

Legal Authority 

As a threshold matter, Respondent argues that the remedy sought by Complainant does not 

exist under Part 16, and that there is no precedent for such extraordinary relief. Respondent 

also argues that if the FAA were to grant the requested relief, then Boeing's interests would 

be negatively affected, and Boeing would not have an opportunity to intervene under 

Part 16 procedures. 

Under 49 U.S.C. § 47122, the FAA may issue orders to carry out Subchapter I (Airport 

Improvement),§§ 47101-47142. This subchapter includes the grant assurances requiring 

reasonable access and prohibiting unjust discrimination to aeronautical users. Under 49 

U.S.C. § 40113(a), the FAA has broad authority to "take action the . .. Administrator ... 

considers necessary to carry out" Part A of Subtitle VII (which includes§ 40103(e) 

prohibiting the granting of exclusive rights) including the authority for "issuing orders." 

Under 14 CFR § 16.1 09(a), the FAA may issue a proposed order of compliance, including 

a cease and desist order, in initial determinations. 

The FAA previously has exercised its authority to issue a cease and desist order as an 

interim measure to maintain the status quo. See, e.g., In the Matter of Compliance with 

Federal Obligations by the City of Santa Monica, California, FAA Docket No. 16-02-08, 

Interim Cease and Desist Order at 10 (Apr. 23, 2008). Such orders may be based on a 

preliminary finding of grant assurance violation prior to conclusion of the initial 

determination of noncompliance. !d. However, this extraordinary relief is appropriate only 

in extraordinary circumstances. See id. 

Although the FAA has not previously issued a preliminary injunction, the type of relief 

requested by Complainant is akin to an FAA cease and desist order to maintain the status 

quo. Accordingly, the FAA concludes that it has authority under 49 U.S.C. §§ 401 l 3(a) 

and 47122 to issue such an order, and the FAA will construe Complainant's motion as 

such. 

1 Respondent provided Complainant a notice to vacate on July 2, 2015, with an effective date of August 31, 

2015. That effective date has since been extended with Boeing's consent to September 14,201 5. 
Respondent is partially correct with respect to Boeing's intervention. Part 16 procedures 

permit intervention by third parties only at the hearing stage. 14 CFR § 16.207(a). 

However, if the FAA issued a cease and desist order against Respondent then Respondent 

would have opportunity for a hearing. 14 CFR § 16.1 09(a). 

Discussion 

Complainant argues that it meets the criteria for preliminary relief (likelihood to succeed on 

the merits, likelihood of suffering irreparable harm, balance of equities in the proponent's 

favor, and public interest). Complainant did not specifically allege how it was likely to 

succeed on the merits other than to refer to the pleadings already filed. Complainant 

alleges that the termination of the 760 parcel lease would force it to "clos[e) its flight 

school or sharply reduc[ e J the services it offers to transient jet aircraft," and that this 

decision would be difficult or impossible to reverse because current customers would 

switch to other providers or airports. Complainant alleges its needs for the 760 parcel lease 

is greater because it is currently using the tiedowns, and Boeing would not need the 737 

MAX parking spaces until the end of 2015. Finally, Complainant alleges that the public 

interest is better served through continuing general aviation aeronautical use at RNT as 

opposed to support of aircraft manufacturing. 

Respondent argues that, considering the loss of Complainant's RNT operating certificate, 

the claims of irreparable harm cannot be traced to the termination of the tie down lease. 

Respondent also argues that Complainant's safety claims are misplaced because 

Complainant had safely conducted all of its operations on the 750 parcel for 20 months 

prior to the month-to-month lease for the 760 parcel tie downs. Respondent also alleges 

that Complainant created the predicament it now is in by accepting a sublease from its 

sister company for insufficient ramp space and then rejecting other aircraft parking 

locations offered by RNT. Finally, Respondent argues that Complainant failed to provide 

any quantification of the impact of losing the short-term tiedown lease, and that even if 

there were financial loss, such loss is compensable at law and therefore not irreparable. 

Respondent alleges that Complainant has not made a sufficient showing of likelihood to 

succeed on the merits. Respondent alleges that factual and legal analysis in the briefs 

supporting the motion for summary judgment, which Complainant does not refute in its 

instant motion, is sufficient justification for denying this motion. Respondent also alleges 

that if the FAA were to find Respondent in noncompliance with its grant assurances, this 

alone does not ensure that Complainant would obtain a lease for the 760 parcel. 

Respondent also argues that it does not have authority to extend the short-term leases for 

tiedowns on the 760 parcel after September 14 because the parcel already has been leased 

to Boeing. 

Respondent further argues that delaying Boeing's possession of the 760 parcel would cause 

the balance of harms to shift in favor of Respondent if this motion were granted. Finally, 

Respondent alleges the public interest is best served by denying the motion. 
The FAA has reviewed the facts and arguments presented and concludes that a cease and 

desist order is not appropriate under these circumstances. The FAA is most persuaded by 

the allegation that Respondent has offered other airport property for Complainant to use 

for aircraft tiedowns, an allegation to which Complainant has not responded despite being 

on notice since at least April17, 2015, when the motion for summary judgment was filed. 

Accordingly, Complainant has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm justifying 

extraordinary relief. The FAA further notes that the Part 16 process is to determine 

compliance with an airport sponsor's grant assurances and not to resolve disputes 

between parties. 

Accordingly, Complainant's Motion is DENIED. This interim order is not a 

determination of the merits of the Complaint. This interim order is not a final agency 

action subject to judicial review as provided in 14 CFR§ 16.24 7(b )(2). The FAA also 

will not entertain an appeal or motion for reconsideration under Part 16 procedures. The 

optional Reply is due September 3, 2015, and the optional Rebuttal is due October 8, 

2015. When the matter is fully briefed, the FAA will issue an initial determination on the 

merits. 

Randall S. Fiertz Date 

Director, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 1, 2015, I caused to be emailed and placed in 

the United States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the 

foregoing ORDER addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Benjamin H. Klein 

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. LANGE, LLC 

80 Ferry Boulevard 

Stratford, CT 06615 

bhk@lopal.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Zan etta 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) 

u ia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis