UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

) 

PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC., ) 

Complainant ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

CITY OF RENTON, ) 

Respondent ) 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-03 

ORDER 

On April17, the Respondent, the city of Renton, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking 

dismissal of the entire complaint. The Complainant, Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. (PFA) filed an 

Answer to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment on June 4, 2015. The Respondent filed 

a Motion for Leave to File Reply on June 12,2015 and the Complainant filed an Opposition to 

that motion on June 24, 2015. 

The Respondent asserts that summary judgment and dismissal of the Complaint are appropriate 

because the material facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Complainant, 

should be decided in favor ofthe Respondent as a matter of law. The Respondent asserts that the 

Complainant has not provided sufficient documentary or other evidence to support its Complaint. 

The Respondent contends that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) only looks for current 

compliance, and that the Respondent has taken steps to accommodate the Complainant that would 

constitute a cure, if there had been any past violations. 

The Complainant contends that it alleged and provided reliable and probative evidence proving 

Respondent's grant assurance violations. The Complainant also contends that the Motion for 

Summary Judgment should be denied because the Respondent cannot demonstrate that there is no 

genuine issue of material fact for adjudication. 

Analysis 

A motion to dismiss must show: ( 1) the complaint appears to be outside of the Administrator's 

jurisdiction; (2) the complaint on its face does not state a claim that warrants an investigation or 

further action by FAA; or (3) the complainant lacks standing. 14 CFR § 16.26(b)(l) A motion 

for summary judgment must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact for adjudication, 

and that the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the complainant, should be 

adjudicated in favor of the respondent as a matter oflaw. 14 CFR § 16.26(c)(l) 
Under 14 CFR § 16.23, a person directly and substantially affected by any alleged 

noncompliance may file a complaint with FAA. The complaint shall provide a concise but 

complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation. The complaint shall 

also describe how the things done or omitted by the respondent directly and substantially 

affected the complainant. 14 CFR § 16.23(b)(3)-(4) If, based on the pleadings, there appears to 

be a reasonable basis for further investigation, FAA will investigate the subject matter of the 

complaint. 14 CFR § l6.29(a) 

The Complainant has alleged material facts with supporting documents sufficient to meet the 

requirements under part 16. The Respondent failed to persuade there is no genuine issue as to 

whether Boeing's use under its lease is an aeronautical use as determined by FAA. The 

Respondent also failed to persuade there is no genuine issue as to whether the disputed parcels 

(as opposed to other parcels made available to the Complainant) are the only airport property 

available to meet the public's interest and aeronautical needs of the airport. These disputed facts 

are integral to a finding of whether the Respondent is in compliance with its Grant Assurances. 

The FAA finds the facts as presented warrant further review under the part 16 proc~ss. 

The Director has reviewed all the submissions and has concluded that there are genuine issues of 

material fact. The issues include but are not limited to the Respondent's compliance with Grant 

Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Power, Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, 

Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure, and Grant 

Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan. 

ACCORDINGLY, it is ordered that: 

Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal of the Complaint is DENIED. 

Additionally, Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Reply is DENIED. 

The Respondent, shall, by July 27, 2015, file its Answer to the Complaint. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 17, 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: 

Complainant 

Bernard A. Paholke 

Vice President 

Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. 

750 W. Perimeter Rd. Unit 1 

Renton, WA 98057 

proflightaviationinc@yahoo.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Zanetta L. Fontes 

Senior Assistant City Attorney 

City Of Renton 

1055 South Grady Way 

Renton, WA 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)