BEFORETHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. d/b/a PROFESSIONAL AIRand AERO FACILITIES, LLC Complainants, V. CITY OF BEND, OREGON Respondent. DocketNo. 16-14-12

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE CITY OF BEND, OREGON FORAN EXTENSION OF TIME Designated for service ofprocess onbehalfofthe City ofBend, Oregon: Gary Firestone, Esq. CITY OF BEND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE City Hall, 710 NW Wall Street P.O. Box 431 Bend, OR 97709 Email: gfirestone@bendoregon.gov Phone: 541-693-2100 Fax: 541-385-6676 RobertFranz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. FRANZJR. 730 B Street P.O. Box 62 Springfield, OR 97477 Email: rfranz@franzlaw.comcastbiz.net Phone: 541-741-8220 Fax: 541-741-8234 December 30, 2014 Pablo 0. Nliesch, Esq. SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID LLP 1875 Eye Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Phone: 202-879-4000 Fax: 202-393-2866BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. d/b/a PROFESSIONAL AIRand AERO FACILITIES, LLC. Complainant,
v. DocketNo. 16-14-12 CITY OF BEND, OREGON Respondent.
UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE CITY OF BEND, OREGON FORAN EXTENSION OF TIME

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §§ 16.19 and 16.11(a), Respondent, the City of Bend, Oregon ("City"), requests leave to file and hereby files this unopposed motion for a 24-day extension of time in which to file its response to the complaint. In support ofits motion, the City states as follows: 1. Complainants, The Flight Shop, Inc. d/b/a ProfessionalAir and Aero Facilities, LLC, filed a Part 16 complaint dated December 5, 2014, againstthe City alleging several violations ofFederal law and GrantAssurances. OnDecember 24, 2014, FAAissued a notice that the complainthad been docketed. The Notice ofDocketing was received by the City's counsel onDecember 29, 2014. Under Part 16 procedural rules, an answer must be filed "within 20 days ofthe date ofservice ofthe FAAnotification." § 16.23(d). In lieu ofanswer, a motion to dismiss and/or a motion for summaryjudgment may be filed "within 20 days after the date ofservice ofthe FAAnotification ofdocketing." 

### § 16.26. Currently, the City's answer, or in the alternative, its motionto dismiss and/or for summaryjudgment, are due onJanuary 13, 2015. 2. On Monday, December 29, 2014, the undersigned contacted Leonard Kirsch, counsel for Complainants, who, on Tuesday December 30th, advised that Complainants do not oppose this request. 3. This request for an extension oftime is notbeing made to delay the proceeding. Complainants have raised numerous issues that require proper responses, and the City believes that a 24-day extension oftime is bothnecessary and appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofthose issues. 4. Part 16 procedural rules are "intendedto expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport related complaints" (61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996)), and FAA recently revised the rules to allow "sponsors to seek early disposition ofcomplaints" in order "to provide for more efficient use ofagency and stakeholder time and resources during complaint proceedings" (78 Fed. Reg. 56136 (Sept. 12, 2013)). Nevertheless, the rules themselves explicitly provide that an extension oftime may be granted "where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency." 

### § 16.11(a). Indeed, FAA has granted unopposed requests for extensions oftime to file an answer that extended the deadline for several weeks. 

### See, e.g., Ray'sFlying Club 

### v. City of Fullerton, FAA Docket 16-04-04 (granting a 63-day extension oftimeto file answer); 

### NBAA v. 

### City of SantaMonica, FAA Docket 16-03-11 (granting a cumulative 74-day extension oftimeto file answer). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the City hereby respectfully requests a 24-day extension of time to file its response inthis investigatory proceeding, so that its answer, or in the alternative

2its motion to dismiss and/or for summaryjudgment, will be due on orbefore Friday, February 6, 2015.

December 30,2014 Respectfully submitted,

# £Jeo~L Pablo 

### 0.Nliesch Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye St., N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Phone: 202-879-4000 Fax: 202-393-2866 Counsel for the City ofBend, Oregon

3Certificate ofService

I hereby certifythat in accordance with 14 CFR 

### § § 16.15 and 16.13(h), I have today, the 30th day ofDecember, 2014, caused a true copy ofthe foregoing Unopposed Motion for Extension ofTime to be served electronically onthe following:
Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. McBreen & Kopko 500 North Broadway Jericho, NY 11753 lkirsch@mklawnyc.com
Martin E. Hansen, Esq. Francis, Hansen & Martin LLP 1148 NW Hill St. Bend, OR 97701 meh@francishansen.com Attorneys for Complainants



# ~o~u~L Pablo 0. Ntiesch