< 

E 

Uj 

So 

- J >-

U. UJ 

UJ P 

S < 

I - lU 

oc z 

0. u. 

UJ o 

o 

o 

CM 

I 3 

Q <n 

< ui 

si 

y o 

3> S 

o> o 

< in 

!^ <^ 

C/} (O 

< CM 

UJ !C, 

a .. 

< UJ 

cc z 

o o 

X X 

u a. 

^ < 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

23 

24 

25 

• 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RDM, LLC, 

Complainant, 

V. 

TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-09-14 

••' O 

REBUTTAL 

TO REPLY TO ANSWER TO "AMENDMENT" 

Without withdrawing its motion to strike the untimely "Ame^ment" to 

Complaint by Complainant RDM, LLC, ("RDM"),' RespondenPState 'of Alaska, 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Ted Stevens Anchorage 

International Airport ("ANC") submits this Rebuttal to RDM's reply to ANC's answer 

to RDM's untimely "Amendment" to Complaint. RDM's Reply confirms why this 

matter should either be dismissed with prejudice or found wholly without merit. 

Devoid of new facts or analysis in response to ANC's Answer to 

"Amendment," an "Amendment" lacking any new allegation or evidence itself, the 

Reply just rehashes the unsupported allegations of the original Complaint. In every 

' RDM's Answer to Motion to Strike asserts without citation that the Part 16 Rules of 

Practice "clearly allows [sic] the complainant to amend its filing," and that neither 

motion for leave nor acceptance are necessary. The Rules appear to address amendment 

of a complaint only in 14 C.F.R. §16.27, allowing the refiling of a complaint, having 

been dismissed without prejudice, "after amendment to correct the deficiency." The 

cases, however, indicate that once the matter is docketed, request for leave to amend is 

expected and that acceptance of an amendment should be based on new facts, not just 

new argument. [See Boca Airport, Inc. v. Boca Raton Airport Authority, FAA Docket 

No. 16-00-10 (March 20, 2003) (Final Decision and Order) p. 9; U.S. Aerospace, Inc. v. 

Rebuttal to Reply to Answer to "Amendment" Page 1 of 4 

RDM, LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
cc 

UJ 

So 

-J >-

U. UJ 

2£ 

s < 

I- UJ 

C X 

0- u. 

UJ o 

O lu 

y 

u. 

u. 

o 

s 

eg 

- < lO 

3 W lO 

Z < CM 

Ul _l - ^ 

? uj'2. 

H «3 .. 

cc 4 Ul 

3 cc Z 

._ < 

n 

a 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

23 

25 

26 

instance, ANC has shown the allegations of differential treatment of AGLAD as 

compared to other ANC tenants were either factually wrong or did not reflect unjust 

discrimination because there were vast differences between AGLAD and the other 

tenants and circumstances. 

RDM has never addressed ANC's document-supported corrections to 

RDM's misstatements of fact. Nor has RDM ever shown anything beyond the roughest 

similarity in size, location and nature of proposed physical facilities among the 

comparison projects. RDM has never shown that it or AGLAD, both real estate 

developers with no airport development experience or plans to provide aeronautical 

services, were aeronautical users entitled to Grant Assurance protection or Part 16 

recourse at all. [See ANC's "Reply to RDM's Answer to Motion to Dismiss," pp. 1-16, 

for more discussion of aeronautic user status.] Nor has RDM shown that AGLAD, 

unable either to post a development guarantee for its expensive "pull-through" B-747 

hardstand development or to meet development deadlines—much less RDM, its less 

than one-third investor—^was similarly situated in 2005-2009 to 

• FedEx or UPS, both word-class cargo airlines with airport project experience 

and deep financial capacity, constructing facilities, including "push-back" 

hardstands, for their own use beginning in 1988 and 1990 respectively, and 

meeting every deadline in the process, or 

• Alaska CargoPort, an LLC consisting of an experienced airport cargo facility 

developer and an oil company, ANC's primary jet fuel supplier, that put up a $10 

million guarantee for CargoPort's "push-back" hardstands and facilities 

beginning in 1997 and receiving only minor extension to later phase work after 

completing its original project within its original deadline. 

[See ANC's "Answer" at Exhibit A, pp. 23 - 27 for more discussion of the differences 

among the respective tenants and their projects and circumstances.] 

Municipal Airport Authority, Millington, Tennessee, FAA Docket No. 16-98-06 

(October 15, 1998) (Director's Decision) p. 24).] 

Rebuttal to Reply to Answer to "Amendment" Page 2 of 4 

RDM. LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

E 

UJ 

9 ^ 5C3 

-I >-

u . Ul 

2^ 

St 

s< 

K UJ 

CC X 

«t ^-

o. u. 

y O 

O 

K 5 

— > " m 

=> 2 o 

U) o" ? 

- < in 

2 c/> UJ 

Z < <M 

UJ ZJ ~ 

** - <J» 111 s . ft a .. E < Ul 3 oc Z 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

S 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

23 

24 

25 

RDM concludes by again urging "the Director to find TSAIA in 'noncompliance' and fiirthermore that the FAA deny continued FAA/Public ftinding to 

TSAIA until proper and appropriate corrective actions are rendered." [Reply to Answer 

to "Amendment" at 3 (emphasis added).] While trying to dispute ANC's description of 

what RDM is really seeking in this matter, the vague "corrective actions" plea emerges 

once again. So what might a "corrective action" be? 

Nowhere in this Part 16 action has RDM ever requested restoration of the 

AGLAD lease (indeed, RDM appears to have no authority to make such a request on 

AGLAD's behalf). RDM has never indicated any interest in having ANC entertain a 

new lease application from AGLAD or RDM. What RDM has said, in a June 22, 2009, 

letter to then-Deputy Commissioner Klein, is that "any settlement with TSAIA would 

have to include a monetary settlement to compensate AGLAD (and thus RDM) for their 

damages." [See Exhibit B to RDM's Complaint, p. 9 (p. 4 of the June 22, 2009 letter).] 

RDM may claim to seek better leasing policy at ANC, but the conclusion is inescapable 

that RDM seeks withdrawal of federal ftinding to pressure ANC to pay RDM money. 

As the FAA has long made crystal clear, "[t]he Part 16 process is not 

intended to punish past transgressions or to provide complainants with compensation for 

past injuries." [U.S. Aerospace, Inc. v. Municipal Airport Authority, Millington, 

Tennessee FAA Docket No. 16-98-06 (October 15, 1998) (Director's Decision, p. 20.] 

ANC urges the Director deny this abuse of Part 16 by either dismissing the Complaint, 

amended or not, with prejudice, or determining it to be without merit on all counts. 

DATED this lO''' day of May, 2010 at Anchorage, Alaska. 

DANIEL S. SULLIVAN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: ^rU^.6f&u: ^ 

/John L. Steiner 

/ SeSenio r r Assistant Attorney General 

ABA No. 8711108 

Rebuttal to Reply to Answer to "Amendment" Page 3 of 4 

RDM, LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

oc 

UJ 

-I > 

u. UJ 

UJ P 

S < 

y . Ul 

tt X 

«( IO. U. 

UJ o 

o 

ul 

< lO 

C/) (O 

< CM 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

23 

24 

25 

Certificate Of Service 

I hereby certify that on May 10, 2010,1 have this day served the foregoing 

REBUTTAL TO REPLY TO ANSWER TO "AMENDMENT" on the following 

persons at the following addresses: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn.: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Room 925 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Shaun Debenham 

Managing Members of RDM, LLC 

2960 C Street, Suite 202 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

via: 

D hand delivery 

D faxed 

M mailed 

rU^'^^^-Z^^UUi^^^ 

JoKh L. Steiner 

enior Assistant Attorney General 

Attorney General's Office 

Attorneys for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

Rebuttal to Reply to Answer to "Amendment" Page 4 of 4 

RDM, LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14