August 21,2014

William F. Ellis, Esq.McNEIL, LEDDY& SHEAHANP.C.271 South Union StreetBurlington, VA 05401Email: wellis@mcneilvt.comPhone: 802-863-4531

Fax: 802-863-1743

Pablo O. Niiesch, Esq.

SPIEGEL& McDIARMIDLLP

1875 Eye Street, NW

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20006

Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.comPhone: 202-879-4000Fax: 202-393-2866

Gregg Meyer, Esq.City of BurlingtonCITYATTORNEY'SOFFICE

149 Church Street

Burlington, VT 05401Email: gmeyer@burlingtonvt.govPhone: 802-865-7121Fax: 802-865-7123

Designated for service of process:

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Respondent.

CITY OF BURLINGTON,

VERMONT

Docket No. 16-14-06

Complainant,

MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC.

v.
FAA notification." § 16.23(d). In lieu of answer, a motion to dismiss and/or a motion for

Part 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 that the Complaint had been docketed.

a Part 16 Complaint against Respondent alleging several violations of federal law and grant

1. On July 29,2014, the Complainant, Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. ("Mansfield"), filed

In 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 motion

COMES NOW, the Respondent, the City of Burlington, Vermont ("Burlington"), and,

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Respondent.

CITY OF BURLINGTON,

VERMONT

Docket No. 16-14-06

Complainant,

MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC.

v.
2

Complainant has raised numerous issues that require careful analysis and proper responses. 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 Burlington airport

and 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 handling

and disposition of airport related complaints" (61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996)), and the FAA

recently revised the rules to 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, the rules themselves

explicitly 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 a

response to a complaint that extended the deadline 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
3

August 21,2014

Attorneys for the

City of Burlington, Vermont

Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.comPhone: 202-879-4000Fax: 202-393-2866

lJD~J~{ Pablo O. Nuesch

Anjali G. Patel

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP

1875 Eye St., N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20006

Respectfully 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 alternative
Pablo O. Nuesch

Attorney for ComplainantBenjamin H. Klein

The Klein Law Firm, LLC61 Broadway, Suite 2125

New York, NY 10006

bklein@thekleinfirm.comelectronically, on the following:21st day of August, 2014, caused the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to be served

y 

y 

§§ 

(

), 

y,