### BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a AIRLINES FOR AMERICA, et al., Complainants, v. Docket No. 16-16-04 PORT OF PORTLAND, OREGON, Respondent.

MOTION OF THE PORT OF PORTLAND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Designated for service of process:
Daniel Blaufus, Esq. General Counsel Ian Whitlock, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Wendy Hain, Esq. Assistant General Counsel T HE 

### P ORT OF 

### P ORTLAND 

### 7200 NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97218 Email: dan.blaufus@portofportland.com ian.whitlock@portofportland.com wendy.hain@portofportland.com Phone: 503-415-6062 Fax: 503-944-7080 Pablo O. Nüesch, Esq. S PIEGEL 

### & M C 

### D IARMID 

### LLP 1875 Eye Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Phone: 202-879-4000 Fax: 202-393-2866

March 3, 2016

### BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a AIRLINES FOR AMERICA, et al. Complainants, v. Docket No. 16-16-04 PORT OF PORTLAND, OREGON, Respondent.

MOTION OF THE PORT OF PORTLAND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.19 and 16.11(a), the Respondent, the Port of Portland, Oregon (“Port”), requests leave to file and hereby files this motion for a 30-day extension of time in which to file its response to the Complaint in the above-captioned matter. In support of this motion, the Port states as follows:
1. On February 10, 2016, the Complainants, th e Air Transportation Association of America, Inc d/b/a Airlines for America, Alaska Airlines, Inc., American Airlines Inc., Atlas Air Inc., Federal Express Corporation, Hawaiian Airlin es, Inc., JetBlue Airway s, Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc., United Parcel Service Co., and Air Cana da, filed a Complaint alleging that Respondent is in violat ion of its federal obligations under 49 U.S.C. §§ 47107(b) and 47133, and Grant Assurance 25. On February 25, 2016, FAA issued a notice that the Complaint had been docketed.

### 2 2. Under the Part 16 procedural rules, an answ er must be filed “within 20 days of the date of service of the FAA notif ication.” § 16.23(d). In lieu of answer, a motion to dismiss and/or a motion for summary judgment may be file d “within 20 days after th e date of service of the FAA notification of docketing. ” § 16.26. Currently, the Port’s response to the Complaint is due on or before March 16, 2016.
3. This request for an extension of time is not being made to delay the proceeding. Complainant has raised issues that require care ful analysis and proper responses. In order to provide a complete and comprehensive answer, th e Port, working with its counsel, must compile the necessary evidence to present to the Ag ency. The undersigned, who has a number of preexisting commitments, has just been retained to represent the Respondent in this investigation and needs sufficient time to work with the Port to gather all relevant evidence and prepare a comprehensive response. The Port believes that a 30-day extension of time is both necessary and appropriate “for a fair and complete considerati on of matters before the agency.” § 16.11(a).
4. On March 2, 2016, the undersigned c ontacted Roy Goldberg, counsel for Complainants, who advised that the Compla inants consent to a 30-day extension. 5. The Part 16 procedural rules are “intende d to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport related complain ts” (61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996)), and allow “sponsors to seek early disposition of complaints” in order “to provide for more efficient use of agency and stakeholder time and resources during complaint proceedings” (78 Fed. Reg. 56136 (Sept. 12, 2013)). Nevertheless, th e rules themselves explicitly pr ovide that an ex tension of time may be granted “where necessary or appropriate for a fair and co mplete consideration of matters before the agency.” § 16.11(a). Indeed, in the past, FAA has not been adverse to granting unopposed requests for extensions of time to file a response to a complaint that extended thedeadline for several weeks. See, e.g., Ray's Flying Club v. City of Fullerton, FAA Docket 16-
04-04 (granting a 63-day extension of time to file an answer); NBAA**v~** City of Santa Monica,
FAA Docket 16-03-11 (granting a cumulative 74-day extension oftime to file an answer).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Port hereby respectfully requests a 30-day extension of
time in which to file its response in this investigatory proceeding, so that the Answer, or in the
alternative a Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment, will be due on or before Friday, April 15, 2016.

March 3, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

# Ao

Pablo 

### 0. Nuesch Anjali G. Patel 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 Attorneys for the Port of Portland

3Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that in accordance with 14 CFR §§ 16.15 and 16.13(h), I have today, the
3rd day of March, 2016, caused the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to be served electronically, on the following:
David Berg, Esq. Vice President & General Counsel Doug Mullen, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Air Transport Association of America, Inc. d/b/a Airlines for America 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 626-4234 Email: dberg@airlines.org dmullen@airlines.org
Counsel for Complainants Roy Goldberg, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429-8028 Email: rgoldberg@steptoe.com

Pablo 0. Niiesch