<

E U j S o

- J > - U
. U J U J P S < I

- l U o cz 0
. u . U J o o o C M I 3 Q < n < u i 

## s i yo 3> S o > o < i n ! ^ < ^ C/ } ( O < C M U J !C , a . . < U J ccz o o X X u a . ^ < 6

7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

2 3 2 4 2 5 •

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C RDM , LLC , Complainant , V . TE D STEVEN S ANCHORAG E INTERNATIONA L AIRPORT ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-1 4

••' O REBUTTA L T O REPL Y T O ANSWE RT O "AMENDMENT " Withou t withdrawin g it s motio n t o strik e th e untimel y "Ame^ment " t o Complain t

b y Complainan t

RDM , LLC , ("RDM"), ' RespondenPStat e 'o f Alaska , Departmen t

o f Transportatio n an dPubli c Facilities , Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airport

("ANC" ) submit s thi s Rebutta l t o RDM' s repl y t o ANC' s answe r t o RDM' s untimel y "Amendment " t o Complaint . RDM' s Repl y confirm s wh y thi s matte r shoul deithe r

b e dismisse dwith prejudic e o r foun dwholl y withou t

merit . Devoi do f

ne w fact s o r

analysi s in respons e t o ANC' s Answe r t o "Amendment, " an "Amendment " lackin g any ne w allegatio n o r evidenc e itself

, th e Repl y jus t

rehashe s th e unsupporte dallegation s o f th e origina l Complaint . I n ever y

' RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Strike assert s withou t citatio n tha t

th e Part 1 6 Rule s o f Practic e "clearl y allow s [sic ] th e complainan t t o amen dit s filing," an dthat neithe r motio n fo r leav e no r acceptanc e ar e necessary . Th e Rule s appear t o addres s amendmen t o f acomplain t

onl y i n 1 4 C.F.R . §16.27 , allowin g th e refilin g o f acomplaint , havin g bee n dismisse dwithou t

prejudice , "after

amendmen t

t o correc t

th e deficiency. " Th e cases , however , indicat e that onc e th e matte r

i s docketed , reques t

fo r leav e t o amen di s expecte dan dthat

acceptanc e o f

a n amendmen t

shoul db e base do n ne w facts , no t jus t ne w argument . [Se e Boc aAirport , Inc . v . Boc aRato n Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-1 0 (Marc h 20 , 2003 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) p . 9 ; U.S . Aerospace , Inc . v .

Rebuttal t o Repl y t o Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 1 o f 4 RDM , LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4c c

U J S o

- J > - U
. U J 

### 2 £ s < I - U J C X 0 - u . U J o O l u y u . u . o s e g

- < l O 3 W l O Z < C M U l
_ l - ^ ? uj'2 . H « 3 . . c c 4 U l 3 c c Z

. _< n a 4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

2 3

2 5 2 6 

### instance , AN

C ha s show

n the allegation s of

differentia

l treatmen

t o f AGLA D a s comparedto othe

r AN C tenant s wer

e eithe r factuall y wron g o

r didno t reflect unjus t discriminatio n becaus e ther e wer e vas t difference s betwee

n AGLA D an dthe othe

r tenant s an dcircumstances . RD M ha s neve

r addresse dANC' s document-supporte dcorrection s to RDM' s misstatement s of

fact . No r ha s RD M eve r show n anythin g beyon

dthe roughes t similarit y i n size , locatio n an

dnatur e of propose dphysica

l facilitie s among the comparison projects . RD M ha s neve

r shown tha

t it or AGLAD , bot

h rea l estate developer s wit

h n o airpor

t developmen

t experienc e o

r plan s to provide aeronautica l services , wer

e aeronautica

l user s entitle dto Gran

t Assuranc e protectio n o

r Par t 1 6 recours e a t all . [Se e ANC' s "Reply t o RDM' s Answe r to Motio n to Dismiss, " pp . 1-16 , fo r mor e discussio n o f

aeronauti c use

r status. ] No

r ha s RDM show

n tha t AGLAD , unabl e eithe

r t o pos t adevelopmen

t guarante e fo

r it s expensiv e "pull-through " B-74 7 hardstanddevelopmen

t o r to mee t developmen

t deadlines—much les s RDM , it s les s tha n one-thir dinvestor—^wa

s similarly situate di

n 2005-200 9 to
• FedE x o

r UPS , bot h word-clas s carg o airline s wit h airpor t project experienc e an ddee p financial capacity , constructin g facilities , including "push-back " hardstands , fo

r their ow n us e beginnin g i

n 198 8 an

d1990 respectively , an

d meetin g ever

y deadline i

n the process , o

r
• Alask aCargoPort , a

n LL C consistin g of

a n experience dairpor

t carg o facilit

y develope r an da n oil company , ANC' s primar y je t fue l supplier , tha

t put u p a$1 0 millio n guarante e fo

r CargoPort' s "push-back " hardstand s an dfacilitie s beginnin g i

n 1997 an dreceivin g onl

y mino r extensio n t

o late r phas e wor

k afte r completing it s origina

l project withi n it s origina

l deadline . [Se e ANC' s "Answer " a

t Exhibit A , pp . 2 3 - 2

7 fo r mor e discussio n of

the difference s among the respectiv e tenant s an dtheir project s an

dcircumstances. ] Municipa l Airport

Authority , Millington , Tennessee , FA A Docke t No . 16-98-0 6 (Octobe r 15 , 1998 ) (Director' s Decision ) p . 24). ] Rebutta l t o Repl y t o Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 2 o f 4 RDM . LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4<

E U J 9 ^ 5C 3

- I > - u . U l 

### 2 ^ S t s < KU J C C X « t ^ - o . u . yO O K5

—> " m = > 2 o U ) o " ?

- < i n 2 c/ > U J Z < < M U J Z J ~ * * - <J » 11 1 s . f t a . . E < U l 3 o c Z 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

2 3 24 2 5 RD M conclude s b y agai n urgin g "th e Directo r t o findTSAI A i n 'non

compliance ' an dfiirthermore tha t th e FA A deny continue dFAA/Publi c ftinding t o TSAI A unti l prope r

an dappropriat e correctiv e action s ar e rendered. " [Repl y t o Answe r t o "Amendment " a

t 3 (emphasi s added). ] Whil e tryin g t o disput e ANC' s descriptio n o f wha t RD M i s reall y seekin g i n thi s matter , th e vagu e "correctiv e actions " ple aemerge s onc e again . S o wha t

migh t a"correctiv e action " be ? Nowher e i n thi s Part

1 6 actio n ha s RD M eve r requeste drestoratio n o f

th e AGLA D leas e (indeed , RD M appear s t o hav e n o authorit y t o mak e suc h areques t o n AGLAD' s behalf) . RD M ha s neve r indicate dany interes t

in havin g AN C entertai n a ne w leas e applicatio n fromAGLA D o r RDM . Wha

t RD M ha s said , i n aJun e 22 , 2009 , lette r t o then-Deput y Commissione r Klein , i s that

"an y settlemen t

with TSAI A woul d hav e t o includ e amonetary settlemen t t o compensat e AGLA D (an dthu s RDM ) for thei r damages. " [Se e Exhibi t

B t o RDM' s Complaint , p . 9 (p . 4 o f th e Jun e 22 , 200 9 letter). ] RD M ma y clai mt o see k

bette r leasin g polic y a

t ANC , bu t

th e conclusio n i s inescapabl e tha t RD M seek s withdrawa l o f federal ftinding t o pressur e AN C t o pay RD M money . A s th e FA A ha s lon g mad e crystal clear , "[t]h e Part 1 6 proces s i s no t intende dt o punis h pas t

transgression s o r

t o provid e complainant s with compensatio n for pas t injuries. " [U.S . Aerospace , Inc . v . Municipa l Airpor t Authority , Millington , Tennesse e FA A Docke t

No . 16-98-0 6 (Octobe r

15 , 1998 ) (Director' s Decision , p . 20. ] AN C urge s th e Directo r

den y thi s abus e o f

Part 1 6 b y eithe r

dismissin g th e Complaint , amende do r

not , with prejudice , o r

determinin g it

t o b e withou t

meri t o n al l counts . DATE D thi s lO'' ' day o f

May , 201 0 a

t Anchorage , Alaska . DANIE L S . SULLIVA N ATTORNE Y GENERA L 

## By : ^rU^.6f&u: ^ /Joh n L . Steine r / Se r Senio r Assistan t Attorne y Genera l AB A No . 871110 8

Rebuttal t o Repl y t o Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 3 o f 4 RDM , LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< oc U J

- I >
u . U J U J P S < y . Ul t t X « ( I

O . U . U J o o u l < l O

C/) ( O < C M 9 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9

2 3 24 2 5 

### Certificat e Of Servic e I hereby certif

y tha t o n Ma y 10 , 2010, 1 hav e thi s da

y serve dthe foregoin

g REBUTTAL T O REPL Y T O ANSWERT O "AMENDMENT " o n the following person s a t the following addresses : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e of the Chief Counse l Attn. : FA A Par t 1 6 Airpor t Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Shau n Debenha m Managing Member s o f

RDM , LLC 2960 C Street , Suit

e 20 2 Anchorage , A

K 9950 3 via : D han

ddeliver y D faxe d M mailed
rU^'^^^-Z^^UUi^^ ^ JoK h L . Steine

r enio r Assistant Attorne y Genera l Attorne y General' s Office Attorney s fo

r Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t

Rebuttal t o Repl y t o Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 4 o f 4 RDM , LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4