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 0 7 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

FAA DOCKET NO. 16-15-10 

RESPONDENT CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS' 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION 

Designation of persons to receive service for the City of Dallas, Texas: 

CHARLES ESTEE 

Assistant City Attorney 

PETER B. HASKEL 

Executive Assistant City Attorney 

7BN Dallas City Hall 

1500 Marilla Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

charles. estee@dallasci tyhall. 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@kap1ankirsch.com 

epilsk@kaplankirsch.com 

Telephone: (202) 955-5600 

Facsimile: (202) 955-5616 
Respondent City of Dallas, Texas (the "City") moves, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.11 and 

16.19(e), for an extension of time to respond to the Notice oflnvestigation until the 60th day 

following a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kinkeade on the Motion of Defendants US. 

Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration to Dismiss or Transfer and 

for a Stay (ECF No. 165), currently pending in City of Dallas v. Delta Airlines, Inc., et al, Civil 

Action No. 3: 15-cv-02069-K (filed Sept. 14, 2015 N.D. Texas) (the "Federal Court Action"). In 

support of its Motion, the City states as follows: 

I. The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") issued the Notice of Investigation 

("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 substantially related to the issues presented in 

the Federal Court Action, including in particular the extent of the City's obligations under the 

Sponsor Assurances relating to Delta's accommodation request in light of the provisions of the 

Wright Amendment Reform Act, Pub. L. 109-352, 120 Stat. 2011 (2006) ("WARA") and the 

Five-Party Agreement, which was incorporated into law by WARA. 1 

2. The City's response to the NOI was originally due on September 8, 2015, taking 

into account the Labor Day Holiday. On August 13, 2015, at the suggestion of Judge 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 on the cross-motions for preliminary 

injunction in the Federal Court Action, the City requested an additional extension to 60 days 

1 The issues in the NO! are also directly related to the issues raised in Southwest Airlines v. DOT (D.C. Cir. No. 15-

1036) and Southwest Airlines v. DOT (D.C. Cir. No. 15-1276). Both cases challenge letters issued by the DOT 

setting forth the City's obligations -with respect to accommodation of carriers at Love Field. Petitioner's brief in the 

first D.C. Circuit case is due on October 13. We are not aware of a briefing schedule in the second D.C. Circuit 

case. In any event, no decision can be expected in either case before late 2016. 

2 
after the Court rules on the FAA's pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF 165). The Court stated that 

he believed the FAA would consider that request, although the attorneys representing the FAA 

did not respond verbally at the time. The City followed up immediately by 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 is justified in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and 

to assure that all parties have the benefit of Judge Kinkeade's decision on the Motion to Dismiss. 

As the NOI acknowledges, the City takes the position that the FAA lacks jurisdiction to 

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 primary jurisdiction 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 NO I. Regardless of how Judge Kinkeade rules on the 

Motion to Dismiss, therefore, his decision will provide additional legal context for the issues 

raised in the NO I. The FAA's consideration of the issues in this proceeding will benefit from 

having the City's briefing on his decision as part of its 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 preliminary injunction, 

and perhaps longer if he grants Delta's motion. Further, even if Judge 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 be resolved until well after 

Judge Kinkeade is expected to rule in any event. Conversely, for the reasons noted above, not 

3 
granting the extension risks both duplication of effort by FAA staff and depriving the City of the 

opportunity to present a complete record in its defense. 

6. Counsel for the City has discussed this Motion with FAA and DOT counsel who 

were present in 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 of time to respond to the NOI until the 60th day after a decision by Judge Kinkeade 

on the Motion ofDefendants US. Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation 

Administration to Dismiss or Transfer and for a Stay (ECF No. 165, filed Sept. 14, 2015), 

currently pending in the Federal Court Action. 

Respectfuiiy submitted this 7th day of October, 2015. 

CHARLES ESTEE 

Assistant City Attorney 

PETER B. HASKEL 

Executive Assistant City Attorney 

7BN Daiias City Hail 

15 00 Mariiia Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

char! es. estee@dallasci tyhall. 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 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this 7th day of October 2015, served the foregoing 

Respondent City of Dallas, Texas' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Notice 

of Investigation on the following parties as indicated below: 

BY HAND DELIVERY: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

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 F iertz 

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 

J essie.DiGregory@faa.gov 

Charles Enloe 

charles.enloe@dot.gov 

Dated this 7th day of October 2015. /v.~~;t/~/ 

W. Eric Pilsk 

5