UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATIONRECEIVED WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS 

## OCT 07 2015 PART 16 DOCKETS FAA DOCKET NO. 16-15-10

RESPONDENT CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS' MOTION FOREXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION

Designation ofpersons to receive service for the City ofDallas, Texas: CHARLES ESTEE Assistant City Attorney PETERB. 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 PeterJ. Kirsch W. Eric Pilsk Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 pkirsch@kap1ankirsch.com epilsk@kaplankirsch.com Telephone: (202) 955-5600 Facsimile: (202) 955-5616Respondent City ofDallas, Texas (the "City") moves, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.11 and 16.19(e), for an extension oftime to respond to the Notice oflnvestigationuntil the 60th day following a decisionbyU.S. District Court Judge Kinkeade ontheMotion of Defendants US. Department of Transportation andFederalAviationAdministration to Dismiss or Transfer and for a Stay (ECF No. 165), currentlypending in City of Dallas v. DeltaAirlines, Inc., etal, Civil ActionNo. 3: 15-cv-02069-K (filed Sept. 14, 2015 N.D. Texas) (the "Federal Court Action"). In support ofits Motion, the City states as follows: I. The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") issued the Notice ofInvestigation ("NOI") in this proceeding on August 7, 2015. The NOI raises issues under Sponsor Assurances 22, 23, and 39 related, generally, to the City's response to Delta Airlines' request for accommodation at Love Field. Those issues are substantiallyrelated to the issues presented in the Federal CourtAction, including in particular the extent ofthe City's obligations under the Sponsor Assurances relating to Delta's accommodation request in light ofthe provisions ofthe Wright Amendment Reform Act, Pub. L. 109-352, 120 Stat. 2011 (2006) ("WARA") and the Five-PartyAgreement, which was incorporated into lawbyWARA. 1 2. The City's response to the NOI was originally due on September 8, 2015, taking into account the Labor DayHoliday. OnAugust 13, 2015, at the suggestion ofJudge Kinkeade, the FAA agreed to give the City an extension to November 2, 2015 to avoid duplicative efforts in the Federal Court Action and this proceeding. 3. On September 30, during the hearing onthe cross-motions for preliminary injunction in the Federal Court Action, the Cityrequested an additional extension to 60 days

1 The issues in the NO! are also directlyrelated to the issues raised inSouthwestAirlines v. DOT(D.C. Cir. No. 15- 1036) and SouthwestAirlines v. DOT(D.C. Cir. No. 15-1276). Both cases challenge letters issued bythe DOT setting forth the City's obligations -with respect to accommodation ofcarriers at Love Field. Petitioner's briefin the first D.C. Circuit case is due on October 13. We are not aware ofa briefing schedule in the second D.C. Circuit case. In any event, no decision can be expected in either case before late 2016.
2after the Court rules on the FAA's pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF 165). The Court stated that hebelieved the FAAwould consider that request, although the attorneys representing the FAA did not respond verbally at the time. The City followed up immediatelyby email with counsel for FAA. Counsel for the FAA suggested today that the City submit a formal request for an extension consistent with the exchange in Judge Kinkeade's courtroom on September 30. 4. The extension isjustified in order to avoid unnecessary duplication ofefforts and to assure that all parties have the benefit ofJudge Kinkeade's decision on the Motionto Dismiss. As theNOI acknowledges, the City takes the position that the FAA lacksjurisdictionto adjudicate issues relating to Delta's request for accommodation pursuant to WARA. NOI at 12. The City acknowledges that the FAA takes the position that it has primaryjurisdiction over those issues, as articulated in the Motion to Dismiss. Thus, the issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss
are entwined with the issues raised in the NOI. Regardless ofhow Judge Kinkeade rules on the Motion to Dismiss, therefore, his decision will provide additional legal context for the issues raised in the NOI. The FAA's consideration ofthe issues in this proceeding will benefit from having the City's briefing onhis decision as part ofits Response in order to provide a complete record. 5. There is no prejudice to granting this extension. Delta will continue to be accommodated until Judge Kinkeade rules on the pending motions for preliminaryinjunction, and perhaps longer ifhe grants Delta's motion. Further, even ifJudge Kinkeade denies Delta's motion, this case will take additional time to adjudicate (for example, the City's answer is not due until November 2 under the current schedule) and could not beresolved until well after Judge Kinkeade is expected to rule in any event. Conversely, for the reasons noted above, not

3granting the extension risks both duplication ofeffort by FAA staffand depriving the City ofthe opportunityto present a completerecord in its defense. 6. Counsel for the Cityhas discussed this Motion with FAA and DOT counsel who
were presentin the courtroom in the Federal Court Action, and those attorneys have not raised any objections to the request. Counsel for the City has also exchanged emails with FAA and DOT counsel in advance. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the City respectfuiiy requests that FAA grant the City
an extension oftime to respond to the NOI until the 60th day after a decision by Judge Kinkeade
on the Motion ofDefendants US. Department of Transportation andFederalAviation Administration to Dismiss or Transfer and for a Stay (ECF No. 165, filed Sept. 14, 2015), currentlypending in the Federal Court Action. Respectfuiiy submitted this 7th day ofOctober, 2015.

CHARLES ESTEE Assistant City Attorney PETERB. HASKEL Executive Assistant CityAttorney 7BN Daiias CityHail 1500 Mariiia Street Dallas, Texas 75201 char!es.estee@dallascityhall.com peter.haskel@dallascityhall.com Telephone: 214/670-3519 Facsimile: 214/670-0622 Peter J. Kirsch W. Eric Pilsk Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 pkirsch@kaplankirsch.com epilsk@kaplankirsch.com Telephone: (202) 955-5600 Facsimile: (202) 955-5616

4CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 7th day ofOctober 2015, served the foregoing Respondent City ofDallas, Texas' Motion for Extension ofTime to Respond to the Notice ofInvestigation on the following parties as indicated below: BY HAND DELIVERY: Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Atto: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591
BYE-MAIL: Susan Ullman Susan.Ullman@usdoj.gov Randall Fiertz Randall.Fiertz@faa.gov Scott Mitchell Scott.E.Mitchell@faa.gov Kevin Willis kevin.willis@faa.gov Daphne Fuller daphne.fuller@faa.gov Jessie DiGregory Jessie.DiGregory@faa.gov Charles Enloe charles.enloe@dot.gov Dated this 7th day ofOctober 2015.



# /v.~~;t/~/ W. Eric Pilsk

5