August 21,2014William F. Ellis, Esq.McNEIL, LEDDY&SHEAHANP.C.271 South Union StreetBurlington, VA 05401Email: wellis@mcneilvt.comPhone: 802-863-4531Fax: 802-863-1743Pablo O. Niiesch, Esq.SPIEGEL&McDIARMIDLLP1875 Eye Street, NWSuite 700Washington, DC 20006Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.comPhone: 202-879-4000Fax: 202-393-2866Gregg Meyer, Esq.City of BurlingtonCITYATTORNEY'SOFFICE149 Church StreetBurlington, VT 05401Email: gmeyer@burlingtonvt.govPhone: 802-865-7121Fax: 802-865-7123Designated for service of process:UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONTFOR AN EXTENSION OF TIMERespondent.CITY OF BURLINGTON,VERMONTDocket No. 16-14-06Complainant,MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC.BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATIONv.FAA notification." § 16.23(d). In lieu of answer, a motion to dismiss and/or a motion forPart 16 procedural rules, an answer must be filed"within 20 days of the date of service of theThe Notice of Docketing was received by Burlington's counsel on August 18,2014. Under theassurances. On August 14, 2014,FAAissued a notice thatthe Complaint had been docketed.a Part 16 Complaint against Respondent alleging several violations of federal law and grant1. On July 29,2014, the Complainant,Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. ("Mansfield"), filedIn support ofthis motion,Burlington states as follows:Complaint in the above-captioned matter.for a 30-day extension of time from the current due date to file its response to the Part 16pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.19 and 16.11(a), requests leave to file and hereby files this motionCOMESNOW, the Respondent, the City of Burlington, Vermont ("Burlington"), and,UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONTFOR AN EXTENSION OF TIMERespondent.CITY OF BURLINGTON,VERMONTDocket No.16-14-06Complainant,MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC.v.BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION2summary judgment may be filed "within 20 days after the date of service of the FAA notificationof docketing."§ 16.26. Currently, Burlington's Answer, or in the alternative, its Motion toDismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment, are due on September 3, 2014.2. This request for an extension of time is not being made to delay the proceeding.Complainant has raised numerous issues that require careful analysis and proper responses. Theundersigned,who has a number of preexisting commitments, has just been retained to representthe Respondent in this investigation and needs sufficient time to work with Burlington airportand City staff to gather all relevant evidence. Burlington believes that a 30-day extension of timeis both necessary and appropriate"for a fair and complete consideration of matters before theagency." § 16.11 (a).3. On Tuesday August 19,2014, the undersigned contacted Benjamin H. Klein,counsel for the Complainant, who advised that the Complainant would not oppose this request.4. The Part 16 procedural rules are "intended to expedite substantially the handlingand disposition of airport related complaints" (61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996)), and the FAArecently revised the rules to allow "sponsors to seek early disposition of complaints" in order "toprovide for more efficient use ofagency and stakeholder time and resources during complaintproceedings" (78 Fed. Reg. 56136 (Sept. 12,2013)). Nevertheless, the rules themselvesexplicitly provide that an extension of time may be granted "where necessary or appropriate for afair and complete 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 aresponse to a complaint that extended the deadline for several weeks.See,e.g., Ray's FlyingClubv.City of Fullerton,FAA Docket 16-04-04 (granting a 63-day extensionOftime to file3August 21,2014Attorneys for theCity of Burlington, VermontEmail: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.comPhone: 202-879-4000Fax:202-393-2866lJD~J~{Pablo O. NueschAnjaliG.PatelSpiegel&McDiarmid LLP1875 Eye St., N.W.Suite 700Washington, DC 20006Respectfully submitted,Oct. 3,2014.the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment, will be due on or before Friday,time to file its response in this investigatory proceeding, so that the Answer, or in the alternativeFor the foregoing reasons, Burlington hereby respectfully requests a 30-day extension ofCONCLUSIONextension of time to file answer).answer);NBAAv.City a/Santa Monica,FAA Docket 16-03-11 (granting a cumulative 74-day .Pablo O. NueschAttorney for ComplainantBenjamin H. KleinThe Klein Law Firm,LLC61 Broadway, Suite 2125New York, NY 10006bklein@thekleinfirm.comelectronically, on the following:21st day of August, 2014, causedthe foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to be servedI hereby certify that in accordance with 14 CFR §§ 16.15 and 16.13(h), I have today, theCertificate of Service