Ill 

KAPLAN KIRSCH ROCKWELL 

November 12, 2015 

VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 

Sharon Long 

Office ofthe Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: In Re Matter of Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City of Dallas, Texas, 

FAADocketNo.l6-15-10 

Dear Ms. Long: 

Enclosed please find for filing in the above-referenced docket one original and three 

copies of the City of Dallas' Motion to File a Reply to the Non-Parties' Briefs. Also enclosed is 

an extra copy of the Motion to be file-stamped and returned in the enclosed self-addressed 

stamped envelope. 

Please feel free to contact me at (202) 955-5600 if you have any questions or require 

additional information. 

Sincerely, 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Enclosures 

Attorneys at La\v Kaplan IGrsch & Rockwell LLP tel: 202.955.5600 

Denver " Washington, DC 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

fax: 202.955.5616 

\V'iV'Y..r.kaplankirsch.com 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

NOV 1 3 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

IN RE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE 

WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY 

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-10 

CITY OF DALLAS' MOTION 

TO FILE A REPLY TO THE NON-PARTIES' BRIEFS 

On November 10, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") notified six 

airlines that it will provide each with an opportunity to submit a brief in response to the City of 

Dallas' (the "City") answer to the FAA's Notice of Investigation ("NOI"). The City's response 

to the NOI must be submitted on November 23, 2015, and the airlines may submit briefs by 

December 23, 2015. The City respectfully requests an opportunity to reply to the airlines' 

briefs. 1 

1 By this request, the City does not waive its right to argue that this proceeding should 

be dismissed, as it will argue in its answer, upon grounds including, without limitation, that the 

Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-352, 120 Stat. 2011 (2006), deprives the 

FAA of power to investigate, make findings, or take any other action on the matters stated in the 

NOI, and that this investigation improperly interferes with the jurisdiction of the court in the 

Northern District of Texas presiding over a civil action to which the FAA is a party and 

involving the same material issues. See City of Dallas v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et a!., Case No. 

3:15 cv-02069-K (N.D. Tex.). 14 C.F.R. § 16.26. Should the FAA not dismiss this proceeding, 

the City believes that the Court's ruling in the federal district court litigation likely will be 

dispositive of the issues in this case and binding on the FAA, and, in any event, will provide 

guidance and clarity for all parties, including the FAA. If the Court issues a decision subsequent 

to the City's submission of its answer to the NOI (and prior to FAA action on the motion to 

dismiss), the City intends to supplement its answer by submitting a brief to the FAA explaining 

the effect of the decision on the issues in this proceeding. 

1 
Under Part 16, third parties are typically not allowed formal participation in an FAAinitiated investigation at the initial investigation stage; participation is only in a hearing under 

Subpart F and if the hearing officer allows for intervention or participation. See 14 C.F .R. 

§ 16.207. At that point, the respondent is afforded a meaningful opportunity to address the thirdparty's arguments at the hearing and may be granted permission to file a reply to the third-party's 

post-hearing brief. See id. § 16.235. Similarly, where a complaint has been initiated under 

Subpart C, a respondent is afforded an opportunity file a rebuttal to the complainant's brief. See 

14 C.F.R. § 16.23(f). Consistent with those rules, the FAA should afford the City an opportunity 

to address the airlines' arguments in a reply brief. 

Although it is unclear to the City what purpose would be served by inviting the 

participation of the airlines given the extensive briefing and discovery DOT has already received 

in connection with the cases pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, if the FAA has decided to invite 

further briefing it should do so in a manner the insures the fairness of the proceeding. The issue 

in this proceeding is whether the City is in compliance with its federal obligations. If the City is 

found to be in non-compliance, it may lose federal grant and PFC eligibility and may be required 

to take corrective action that may impose further expense on the City. The FAA has authorized 

the involvement of six airlines with competing interests - several of whom have taken positions 

adverse to the City and adverse to each other on the issues under investigation - without 

limitations on the legal and factual matters they may brief and while effectively allowing them to 

have the last word in this proceeding. The City should be afforded every opportunity to defend 

itself, including responding to arguments and issues raised by those airlines. See Cleveland Ed. 

of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (U.S. 1985) (The "essential requirements of due 

2 
process, and all that respondents seek or the Court of Appeals required, are notice and an 

opportunity to respond."); see also J. Andrew Lange, Inc. v. FAA, 208 F.3d 389, 392 (2d Cir. 

2000) ("Under the due process clause, the FAA cannot deprive a party of constitutionally 

protected property without appropriate procedural safeguards.") 

FAA procedures provide for a right of rebuttal in Subpart C and F proceedings, and it 

should do so here as well. 

Accordingly, the FAA should grant the City's request and provide it with an opportunity 

to reply to the arguments raised by the airlines in their response briefs. Because six airlines may 

submit response briefs of potentially significant lengths and will each raise different factual and 

legal issues, the City requests sixty (60) days to reply in a single brief to each of the airlines' 

response briefs. 

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of November 2015. 

CHARLES ESTEE 

Assistant City Attorney 

PETER B. HASKEL 

Executive Assistant City Attorney 

7BN Dallas City Hall 

1500 Marilla Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

charles.estee@dallascityhall.com 

peter.haskel@dallascityhall.com 

Telephone: (214) 670-3519 

Facsimile: (214) 670-0622 

k~J!--

3 

Peter J. Kirsch 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

pkirsch@kaplankirsch.com 

epilsk@kaplankirsch.com 

Telephone: (202) 955-5600 

Facsimile: (202) 955-5616 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this 12th day of November 2015, served the foregoing City of 

Dallas' Motion To File A Reply To The Non-Parties' Briefs on the following parties as 

indicated below: 

BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: Sharon Long 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

BYE-MAIL: 

Susan Ullman 

Susan. Ullman@usdoj .gov 

Randall Fiertz 

Randall.Fiertz@faa.gov 

Byron Huffinan 

Byron.Huffinan@faa.gov 

Scott Mitchell 

Scott.E.Mitchell@faa.gov 

Kevin Willis 

kevin.willis@faa.gov 

Daplme Fuller 

daplme.fuller@faa.gov 

Jessie DiGregory 

J essie.DiGregory@faa.gov 

Charles Enloe 

charles.enloe@dot.gov 

Dated this 12th day of November 2015. 

4 

W. Eric Pilsk