< 

DC 

Ui 

It 

IL, lU 

H UI 

EC X 

O. IL 

iU o 

OQJ 

o 

E 

cc 2 o (D 

fQ Z < CM 

Ml _J _ . 

< T ui S' 

£ K o •• 

o E < >" 

X 3 (£ Z O o o o 

Z UL X X 

< ^ o a. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

rN 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRAXIOMWASHINGTON, DC 

RDM, LLC, 

Complainant, 

V. 

TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 

Respondent. 

(5E ll¥ E 

JAK n 2(M 

)RT/ENVIRDNf 

n 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 

Docket No. 16-09-14 

NOTICE OF ERRATA 

Alaska DOT&PF hereby corrects a substantive typograpical omission 

from page 10 of its Rebuttal dated December 29, 2009.' That page should have 

included the word "not" as inserted by hand on the attached copy of that page. 

DATED this 5**^ day of January, 2010 at Anchorage, Alaska. 

DANIEL S. SULLIVAN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: ^fC^/pfiiz^ 

Pbhn L. Steiner 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

ABA No. 8711108 

•••-'C" J 

g 

* Although counsel apologizes for a number of other typographical errors, 

none other appears so substantive as to require formal correction. 

Notice of Errata 

RDM.LLCv.ANC 

Page 1 of2 

Docket No. 16-09-14 
s 

CM 

t S5 

S

in 

111 

u. u 

> - IU 

a. u. IU o 

o 

< !i ! - o> OC 3 CO <o CO Z < C4 

IU _J ,-^ 

<" si ^ p 

o 5 ** S 

< X u ^ 

£ H <5 •• 

o oc < f 

X 3 E Z O o o o 

Z LL X X 

< ^ O Q. 9 z 

,- < 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Certificate Of Service 

I hereby certify that on January 5, 2010, I have this day served the 

foregoing NOTICE OF ERRATA 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 

n faxed 

@ mailed 

"^U^oL/jdc^ 

JohirL. Steiner 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Attorney General's Office 

Attorneys for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

Notice of Errata 

BDM, LLC V. Al^C 

Page 2 of2 

Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

cc 

IU 

fi t o 

H IU o 

5E° 

BC I - O 

a, u. z 

lUO < 

u 

S 

CM 

t « m 3 S S CO ; ° ^ < in 

^ , ^ <<> 

3 CO <o 

Z < CM 

IU - I £ ^ 

^ uj SE a .. 

E < IU 

o tc z 

o o o 

UL X X 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

rs 

(September 18, 2009) (Final Decision and Order, p. 28). RDM has failed to satisfy its 

burden of proof that AGLAD was similarly situated with CargoPort. Indeed, RDM 

cannot satisfy that burden because the distinguishing factors are too many and too 

distinct. 

E. RDM has not carried its burden of proof that the terms and treatment 

AGLAD received from the Alaska DOT&PF were not reasonably justified, 

which they were. 

In the first seven pages of its Answer, Alaska DOT&PF explained why it 

negotiated financing deadlines—^to which AGLAD did not object and indicated it would 

meet—into the AGLAD lease. In the fall of 2005, AGLAD had not demonstrated that it 

had the financial ability to carry out its project, [ANC-AGLAD-0157] unlike CargoPort, 

which had been required to post a $10 million bond or guarantee. (Bond requirement for 

100% of costs, ADA-30816, Article IX [ANC-CargoPort-0014]; Statement of $10 

million minimum amount, ADA-30816, Article X.D [ANC-CargoPort-0016], letter 

acknowledging receipt [ANC-CargoPort-0111]. 

Under state regulations, at 17 AAC 42.215(b)(5) and 42.240(b), ANC 

staff was required to address financial responsibility of AGLAD to ensure timely 

0>0t 

completion of improvements. AGLAD, didfdisclose whatever financial backing RDM 

had committed to the project. Alaska DOT&PF had the option of denying the lease for 

failure to demonstrate financial responsibility sufficient to carry out the project, 

deferring a lease until AGLAD could put the financing together, which would have 

required a new competitive public notice, or working out an alternative. With AGLAD 

opposed to either of the first two options but confident it could get the financing 

together in the relative near term, AGLAD proposed a "conditional lease." Lee Nunn 

letter to Richard Wilson, October 24, 2005 [ANC-AGLAD-0157 at 0160]. Thus the 

concept of a financing deadline on which the lease was contingent actually originated 

with AGLAD. It was not as a "take-it-or-leave it" provision, as alleged by RDM, but a 

negotiated work-around to which AGLAD made no objection. Evidence of other 

negotiated provisions is contained in a note to file at [ANC-AGLAD-0162]. 

REBUTTAL 

RDM, LLC V. ANC 

Page 10 of 42 

Docket No. 16-09-14