### UNITE D STATES DEPARTMEN T OFTRANSPORTATIO

N FEDERA L AVIATION ADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C . J&B ENTERPRISES , INC. , d^/a/ RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , METROPOLITA

N NASHVILL

E AIRPOR

T AUTHORITY , Respondent
. Docket No. : 16-08-0

7 

# |EMOWE |

AU G 3200 9 PAR T 1 6 DOCKET S

— i 

### COMPLAINAN T J& B ENTERPRISES ' REPL Y O N MOTIO N T O SUPPLEMEN T TH E RECOR D AN D OPPOSITIO N T O RES%NDENT' S MOTIO N T O STRIK E NEWISSUE S O N APPEA L

• - • •: '
. )

—I 

### Complainan

t J&B Enterprises , Inc. , d^/a / Rhyth mShine (hereafte

r "Complainant " o | "J&B") , b y it s counsel , hereb y respond s t o Responden t Metropolita

n Nashvill e Airpor

t Authority' s ("MNAA" ) Oppositio n To Complainant' s Motio n To Supplemen t The Recor

dO n Appea l AndMotion T o Strik

e Ne w Issue s On Appeal
. For th e reason s outline di n J&B' s July 17 , 200 9 Oppositio n t o MNAA' s Motio n fo r Immediat e Sta y anda n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e It s Reply , th e Assistan

t Administrator

shoul ddecide thes e matter s i n comiection wit h deciding th e appea l o f th e Director' s Determination
. Th e MNA A i s no t entitle dt o aseparate , advanc e decisio n o f

whethe r th e recor dshouldb e supplementedandwha t issue s will b e addressedi n th e appeal
. Fo r th e additiona

l .masons state dbelow , whe n thes e matter s ar e decided , th e Assistan t Administmtor

shouldexe«.is e her

discredo n t o supplemen

t th e record , a s J&B ha s requested
. I n addition , upo n reviewing th e record , th e Assistant Administrator

shoul dfindtha

t J&B' s complain , squarely allege dretaliator y conduc t an dtha t MNA A wa s i n violatio n of

th e FA A Par t 2 6 regulatio n prohibitin g retaliation , andtha t tite Director' s Determmadon discusse dflte allegaaons , but

only i n th e context

o f dkparat e intpac t

andtreatmen

t claim s and , thus
.erroneousl y faile dt o appl y th e la w recognizin g retaliatio n a s discriminatio n t o thos e allegations
.

Further , after

reviewin g th e entir e record , includin g th e factual assertion s an dexhibit s i n MNAA' s Answe r

an dMotion t o Dismiss , an dth e Director' s Determination , th e Assistan t Administrato r

shoul dfin dtha t

J&B' s complain t

allege dtha t

th e Hudson-Olympi c Suppl y join t ventur e di dnot

satisf y ACDB E requirement s an dtha t MNA A directl y pu t

at issu e it s obligation s t o determin e an dmonito r thos e factor s regardin g th e independen t operatio n o f

Olympi c require d fo r ACDB E status . Th e Assistan t Administrato r

als o shoul dfin dan dconclud e that th e Director' s Determinatio n purporte dt o mak e finding s tha t th e Hudson-Olympi c join t ventur e satisfie dACDB E requirement s an dtha t MNA A satisfie dit s obligation s t o determin e an d monito r th e ACDB E statu s o f

Olympic , bu t

erre di n reachin g thos e conclusion s becaus e i t faile d t o conside r

o r requir e fact s tha t

establishe dtha t

Olympi c operate dindependently an dsatisfie dall th e requirement s fo r

ACDB E statu s i n th e Part 2 3 regulation s an dth e FAA' s Join t Ventur e Guidanc e an dtha t

MNA A ha dperforme dan dsatisfie dit s obligation s t o determin e an dmonito r thos e factors , a s require dfor i t t o credi t an dcoimt

Olympi c a s ACDB E participatio n unde r thos e sam e regulation s an dFA A Join t Ventur e Guidance
. Fo r al l thes e reasons , J&B' s motio n t o supplemen t shoul db e grante dan dMNAA' s motio n t o strik e shoul db e denied
. REPL Y O N MOTIO N T O SUPPLEMEN T MNA A oppose s supplementatio n o f th e recor dt o includ e th e si x document s referre dt o i n th e motion—^three letter s actuall y submitte dt o th e FA A i n Januar y an dFebruary 200 9 b y J& B pr o s e i n coimectio n with th e appeal , aJun e 19 , 200 8 lette r fi-omJ&B' s then-attome y t o MNA A
an dtw o letter s date di n January an dMa y o f 200 9 appende dt o th e appea l regardin g th e DB E statu s o f Olympi c i n acontractua l relationshi p with Hudso n a t th e BWI airport

i n Maryland
. Thes e wil l b e addresse di n turn .First , th e thre e letter s fromi&Bpr o s e t o th e FA A wer e J&B' s attemp t t o supplemen t

th e recor dwit h materia l i t

though t bor e o n th e issue s associate dwith th e complaint
. Althoug h physicall y i n th e record , th e D D exclude dthe mfromth e recor dbecaus e the y wer e improperl y filedan d"no t

serve dproperly. " D D a t 9 & rm . 5 7 an d58 . MNA A acknowledge s tha t the y wer e submitte di n support

o f J&B' s cas e but

complain s tha t

the y contai n "unsubstantiate dfact s an d conclusory statements. " MNA A Opposition a t 4 . Thes e document s mee t th e tes t for supplementatio n state di n th e case s upo n whic h MNA A relies , a s J& B sough t t o an dbelieve d the y wer e submittin g the mt o th e FA A prio r t o th e DD . Further , tha t

th e D D excise dthes e pr o s e submission s fromth e recor dfo r lac k o f servic e seem s unjus t

i n th e absenc e o f

evidenc e tha t

J& B wa s informe db y th e FA A i n th e cours e o f thes e communication s tha t th e document s neede dt o b e serve do n MNA A t o b e considered
. Second , th e MNAA' s oppositio n i s correc t i n pointin g ou t

tha t th e motio n t o supplemen t was wron g i n statin g tha t th e Jim e 19 , 200 8 lette r fro mJ&B' s then-attome y t o MNA A was referre dt o i n th e Jul y 30 , 200 8 lette r o f Complaint
. Se e MNA A Opposition a t 4 n . 1 . O n further revie w o f th e Complaint , i t

i s no t s o reference dan dtha t

statemen t

i n error . Thus , tha t

groun dfor supplementatio n doe s no t exist
. However , th e documen t wa s sen t t o an dpresumabl y i s i n th e possessio n o f

MNA A and , althoug h no t befor e th e Director , it s consideratio n o n appea l wil l not prejudic e MNAA . Third , th e tw o letter s containin g th e finding s o f th e Marylan dAviatio n Administratio n tha t 01)mipi c wa s no t

operatin g independentl y o f Hudso n suc h tha t

i t di dnot qualif y a s an ACDBE , Appendi x B t o th e appeal , an dth e January 9 , 200 9 lette r t o M . Freilich , FAA' s Directo r o f DB E Compliance , Wester n Region , fromM . Rosales , complainin g tha t Hudso n an d Olympi c wer e operatin g a"sha mACDB E join t venture[ ] a t

BW I airport, " attache da s Appendi x A t o th e appeal , bot h satisf y th e tes t fo r supplementatio n state di n th e case s upo n whic h MNA A 3relies , a s the y wer e not know n o r

availabl e t o J& B prio r

t o th e D D an dwer e submitte db y motio n with th e appea l a s soo n a s the y wer e known
. I n addition , althoug h not previousl y know n t o J&B , thes e document s shoul dhav e bee n know n t o MNA A a s th e entit y responsibl e for monitorin g th e ACDB E statu s o f Olympic , an dwer e availabl e t o th e FA A a t th e tim e o f

an d shoul dhav e bee n considere db y th e Directo r i n makin g hi s determination
. Finally , the y ar e unquestionabl y relevan t

t o th e issu e o f

th e viability o f

th e Hudson-Olympi c Suppl y join t ventur e a t issu e befor e th e Directo r an di n thi s appeal , a s demonsfrate dbelow
. OPPOSITION T O MOTIO N T O STRIKE MNA A erroneousl y argue s tha t tw o issue s raise di n J&B' s appea l ar e "new " o r ar e "raise dfor

th e firs t time " i n th e appeed
. Th e tw o issue s claime dt o b e ne w ar e MNAA' s retaliatio n agains t

J& B for complainin g tha t

i t was no t i n complianc e with ACDB E regulations , an dth e viabilit y o f

th e Hudson-Olympi c Suppl y join t ventur e a s satisfyin g ACDB E regulation s an dth e FAA' s Join t

Ventur e Guidance
. Eac h i s considere di n tur n belo w and , for th e reason s indicated , neithe r

issu e i s ne w o r

raise dfor

th e first tim e o n appeal
. Thus , MNAA' s motio n t o strik e shoul db e denied
. MNAA' s Retaliatio n Agains t J& B Th e Complaint , o n pag e 1 , specificall y allege dtha t MNA A wa s i n violatio n o f 4 9 CF R 26.109 . That

regulatio n explicitl y provides : § 26.10 9 Wha t

ar e th e rule s governin g information , confidentiality , cooperation , an d intimidatio n o r

retaliation ? (d ) Intimidatio n an dretaliation
. I f yo u ar e arecipient , contractor, o r an y othe r

participan t i n th e program , yo u mus t not intimidate , threaten , coerce , o r discriminat e agains t

an y individua l o r

firmfor th e purpos e o f

interferin g wit h an y right o r privileg e secure db y thi s part o r becaus e th e individua l o r firmha s mad e acomplaint , testified , assisted , o r participate di n an y manne r i n a n investigation , proceeding , o r hearin g unde r

thi s part . I f yo u violat e thi s prohibition , yo u ar e i n noncomplianc e with thi s part .(emphasi s added)
.

Th e Complain t

als o contain s specifi c allegation s o f discriminatio n a s retaliator y conduc t b y both MNA A an dHudson
. I t alleged , a t

p . 3 , tha t

"Hudso n ha s discriminate dagains t J& B base do n rac e b y resortin g t o tactic s o f intimidatio n t o forc e J& B t o collaborat e i n an artific e tha t woul dpermi t

Hudso n t o continu e th e fraudulent performanc e o f

it s concessio n managemen t confrac t wit h th e MNAA. " (Emphasi s supplied. ) I t als o allege dtha t

J& B wa s ''^threatene dwit h
remova l fromth e premise s b y MNA A an dHudson " whe n i t refuse dt o submi t

t o Hudson' s discriminator y freatment. Id
. Th e Complain t

als o expressl y allege dtha t MNA A retaliate dagains t J& B after

i t complaine dtha t

MNA A was not

complyin g wit h DB E regulation s i n terminatin g it s existin g concessio n agreemen t

an dgivin g i t

notic e tha t

MNA A woul dissu e ane w RF P for asho e shin e concession
. Specifically , th e Complain t allege dthat , rathe r

tha n meetin g t o attemp t t o resolv e J&B' s concern s tha t

MNA A wa s not

operatin g i n complianc e wit h th e ACDB E regulations , a s requeste di n J&B' s Apri l 1 6 letter , "instea dth e MNA A responde db y terminatin g th e contrac t with J&B. " Complaint , p . 4 . Finally , th e Complain t specificall y requeste drelie f t o remed y MNAA' s retaliatio n i n terminatin g tha t concessio n agreement . Th e Complain t requeste d"a n Agenc y directiv e prohibitin g MNA A fro mterminatin g th e concessio n agreemen t wit h J& B unti l after th e Agenc y conduct s acomplianc e revie w o f all aspect s o f

th e contrac t

performanc e o f Hudso n regardin g th e managemen t o f concession s a t

th e [MNAA]. " Complaint , p . 5 . Thes e allegation s wer e discusse di n th e Director' s Determination
. See , e.g. , D D at 2 , 8 . Unfortimately , i t

considere dthem , i f

at all , onl y i n th e contex t

o f apotential disparat e impac t o r disparat e treatmen t

claims
. See , e.g. , D D at 20 , 25 . Th e D D simpl y faile dt o acknowledg e th e explici t claim s o f

retaliatio n state di n th e Complain t o r t o recogniz e tha t

th e Suprem e Court consistentl y ha s hel dtha t "[r]etaliatio n agains t

aperso n becaus e tha t

perso n ha s complaine do f 5.. . discriminatio n i s anothe r formo f intentiona l
.. . discrimination.... " Jackso n v . Birmingham B dofEduc , 54 4 U.S . 167,173-17 4 (2005 ) (citation s omitted)
. Thus , th e failure o f

th e D D t o recogniz e an dconside r J&B' s retaliatio n clai mdi dno t resul t froman y lac k

o f allegation s tha t

MNA A terminate dJ&B' s existin g concessio n agreemen t i n respons e t o th e lette r

suggestin g ACDB E regulator y violations
. Instead , i t resulte dfromth e DD' s failiu- e t o recogniz e tha t th e plai n factual allegation s o f retaliatio n constitute daviolatio n o f Titl e V I regulations
. Thi s i s mos t clearl y demonsfrate db y th e fac t that , althoug h th e D D constantl y referre dt o th e U.S . Departmen t O f Justic e Titl e V I Lega l Manua l for guidance , i t completel y ignore dth e fac t tha t retaliatio n i s explicitl y included , alon g with disparat e treatmen t an ddisparat e impact , i n th e definitio n o f "Wha t Constitute s Discriminatory Conduct? " i n that Manual
. Tha t

Manual , i n th e sam e sectio n t o whic h th e D D constantl y referred , outline s tha t retaliatio n i s discriminatory conduc t an dth e element s o f

aretaliatio n clai mtha t matc hth e allegation s o f

th e Complaint
. Tha t

section , i n part , provide s a s follows : VIII . Wha t

Constitute s Discriminator y Conduct ? C . Retaliatio n A complainan t

ma y brin g aretaliatio n clai munde r Titl e V I o r

unde r aTitl e V I regulatio n tha t

prohibit s retaliation
. Fo r example , mos t

agenc y Titl e V I regulation s provid e tha t

"[n] o recipien t

o r othe r perso n shal l intimidate , threaten , coerce , o r discriminat e agains t

an y individua l for

th e purpos e o f

interferin g with an y right o r privileg e secure db y [Titl e VI] , o r becaus e h e ha s mad e acomplaint , testified , assisted , o r participate di n an y maime r i n a n investigation , proceedin g o r hearin g unde r

thi s subpart. " 2 8 C.F.R . § 42.108(e ) (Departmen t o f Justic e Regulation)
. T o establis h a

. prim afaci e cas e o f

retaliation , th e investigatin g agenc y mus t fns t determin e i f

th e complainan t

ca n sho w (1 ) tha t

h e o r sh e engage di n aprotecte dactivity , (2 ) tha t th e recipien t

kne w o f th e complainant' s protecte dactivity , (3 ) tha t th e recipien t too k som e sort

o f advers e actio n agains t

th e complainant , an d(4 ) tha t ther e wa s acausa l connectio n betwee n th e complammt' s protecte dactivit y an dth e recipient' s advers e

^ ' ' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^21^ ^ (las t visite d7/26/09) . 6Accordingly , th e Complaint' s allegatio n o f retaliatio n i s not

a"new " issue
. Instead , i t i s a n issu e properl y raise da s afailur e o f th e D D t o reac h a"conclusio n o f la w .. . mad e i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy, " an dth e DD s failur e t o mak e finding s o f

fac t regardin g discriminatio n tha t "ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence. " Se e Airborn e Flyin g Service , Inc. , v . Cit y o f Ho t Springs , Arkansas , FA A Docke t

No . 16-07-06 , (May 2 , 2008 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) pag e 1 4 (citin g Rick s V . Millineto n Municipa l Airport , FA A Docke t No . 16-98-19 , (Decembe r 30 , 1999 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder)
. MNAA' s Complianc e Wit h ACDB E Progra mRegulation s Th e Complain t

allege dtha t

Olympic' s participatio n i n th e AMS-Olympi c Join t Ventur e di dnot satisf y ACDB E participatio n requirements
. Complaint , p . 2 . I t als o allege dtha t

that MNA A "wa s fully awar e o f th e deficiencie s with [sic ] respec t t o th e amoimt

o f ACDB E participation , bu t

i n concert

wit h Hudso n chos e t o ignor e them. " Id
. Th e Complain t als o allege d tha t J& B wa s th e onl y ACDBE-eligibl e entit y "operatin g unde r th e contrac t

awarde dt o Hudson "
at th e MNA A an dtha t

Hudso n faile dt o mee t eithe r th e percentag e o f

th e join t

ventur e participatio n o r

subconfrac t

participation
. Id. , a t

3 . I n thes e respects , th e Complain t allege dtha t MNA A wa s i n violatio n o f 4 9 CF R§ § 26.4 1 an d26.47(b)
. Id. , a t 2 . Th e Director' s Determinatio n ("DD" ) pointe dou t tha t th e prope r

regulatory provision s for requirement s o f

th e ACDB E progra mwer e 4 9 CF R§ § 23.5 9 an d23.5 7 an dtha t it s revie w woul db e unde r thos e sections
. DD , at

1 8 n . 62 . Finally , th e Complain t specificall y requeste da s relie f " acomplianc e revie w o f

all aspect s o f

th e confrac t

performanc e o f

Hudso n regardin g th e managemen t o f concession s a t

th e [MNAA]. " Complaint , p . 5 . MNAA' s Answe r

an dMotio n t o Dismis s certainl y recognize dth e Complain t a s havin g raise dth e large r

issu e whethe r

i t wa s operatin g it s ACDB E progra mi n complianc e wit h FA A

7regulations , rathe r tha n som e narrowl y define dquestion
. Thi s i s mos t easil y demonsfrate db y th e headin g MNA A chos e fo r tha t sectio n o f

it s argiunent : "MNA A Has Operate dIt s ACDB E Progra mi n Goo dFaith an dHa s Fostere dDB E Participatio n i n It s Concessions. " MNA A Answer , a t

30 . I t th e argumen t

tha t followed , MNA A di dnot simpl y respon dt o th e specifi c issue s o f whethe r Olympi c was certifie di n Tennesse e a t th e tim e o f

th e RF P an dth e 51 % percen t ownershi p interest. ' Instead , i t wen t o n t o asser t

affirmativel y tha t

"th e Join t

Ventur e with Olympi c Suppl y wa s a'viabl e partnership'..
. [and ] w[as ] 'responsive ' t o th e requirement s o f Part 23 " a t th e tim e o f

th e RFP , an dsubmitte da s an Exhibi t it s analysi s o f

th e propose dJoin t Venture . MNA A Answer , a t 32 ; Ite m1 0 Ex . 34 . That Exhibi t include dsummary statement s purportin g t o b e analyse s an dconclusion s regardin g level s o f capita l contribution , participatio n i n dail y operations , managemen t function s an dconunerciall y usefij l functio n i n th e propose d Hudson-Olympi c Join t

Venture . Se e Ite m1 0 Ex . 34 , a t p . 2 . Indeed , MNAA' s Answe r an d Motio n t o Dismis s explicitl y argue dno t onl y tha t

th e Hudson-Olympi c arrangemen t was a "viabl e partnership, " bu t

tha t i t ha d"rejecte dth e propose djoin t ventur e agreemen t

o f anothe r proposal " fo r

apparen t failur e t o satisf

y th e reqmrement s o f

4 9 CF RPar t

23 . Id
. MNA A argue d tha t i t "carefull y considere dth e DB E participatio n i n al l th e NG& S proposals, " "i n keepin g with it s obligation s unde r

Part 23. " MNA A Answer , at 32 . MNA A als o ther e referre dto , reliedo n

' O n thos e narrow issues , MNA A purportedt o provide evidenc e tha t Olympic wa s certifiedin bot h Marylan dan d Tennessee a

t the tim e o f th e RF P submission , yet

the only materia

l submittedrelating t o Marylan dwa s not aDB E certification but

a n affidavi t o f only one owne

r o f Olympic seeking DB E statu s in Januar y 2006 , an dthe for mitself indicate s tha

t a n affidavi t of onl y on e owne r i s not sufficient
. Se

e Ite m8 , Ex . 32 , a

t 3-4 . O f course , a t the tim e MNA A submittedthi s affidavi

t in respons e to th e Complamt , the Marylan dAviation Administration was refiisin g t o recogniz e o

r coun t Olympic' s participatio n a s a n ACDB E in asimila

r agreemen t wit h Hudso n a t the Baltimore

Washington Internationa

l Airport
. See Appea

l Appendix B . Thus , MNA A was eithe

r s o uninforme

das to Olympic tha t i t wa s obliviou s to the fac

t tha t i t ha dlos t it s home-stat

e statu s a s counting a s a

n ACDBE , or

was awar e bu t withhel dtha

t informatio

n fromthe FA

A an dJ& B in responding t o the Complain t here
. Moreover , the onl

y documen t MNA A submittedrelating t o Tennessee i s no t aDB E certification , but

wha t appear s to b e onl

y a n undated printout
. Ite

m8 , Ex . 32 , a

t 5 . Thus , the onl

y certification of

Olympic a s aDB E i

n the recor

di s tha t issuedb y MNA A itsel f Ite m8 , Ex . 32 , a

t 1-2 . 8an dput

befor e th e Directo r

a s an exhibit

th e FAA' s Join t

Ventur e Guidance
. MNA A Answer , at 31 ; Ite m1 0 Ex . 33 . Further , i n it s statemen t

o f facts , MNA A als o asserte dtha t it s ACDBEL O "i s responsibl e for ensurin g tha t

th e Airport' s concession s progra mcomplie s wit h FA A requirements " an dthus , amon g othe r

things , '"''monitors participatio n rate s an dreport s thos e rate s t o th e FAA. " MNA A Answer , a t

6 ; Ite m8 (Goodin g Affidavit ) (emphasi s added)
. Th e Answe r the n assert s tha t

"[t]h e concession s covere db y amaste r concessio n leas e wit h Hudson , whic h ar e a t issu e here , als o exceede dMNAA' s goa l o f 15.7 % ACDB E participation " becaus e "[i] n F Y 2008 , 17 % o f gros s receipt s o f

Hudson' s New s an dGif t retai l concession s wer e attribute dt o DBEs. " MNA A Answer , a t

6 (emphasis added)
. Thus , th e Complain t

an dMNAA' s Answe r

an dMotio n t o Dismis s squarel y pu t a t issu e th e viabilit y o f

th e Hudson-Olympi c partnershi p i n th e join t ventur e unde r

th e ACDB E regulation s an dth e FAA' s Join t Ventur e Guidance
. MNAA' s answe r specificall y pu t

at issu e th e propriet y o f

MNAA' s assessmen t

o f th e viabilit y o f

tha t partnershi p a t

th e tim e o f

th e RFP , it s ongoin g monitorin g o f th e join t venture , it s attributio n o f 17 % o f th e gros s receipt s o f

th e join t ventur e a s ACDB E participatio n an dit s reportin g o f tha t rat e o f ACDB E participatio n t o th e FAA . Havin g responde dt o th e Complain t wit h thes e asserte dfact s an dargument s regardin g th e validity o f

th e Hudson-Olympi c partnershi p an dho w tha t join t ventur e shoul db e coimte dfor ACDB E participation , MNA A caimo t no w clau n tha t

thes e sam e issue s ar e "new " o r ar e raise d for th e firs t tim e o n appeal
. Finally , th e Director' s Determinatio n ("DD" ) considere dth e issu e broadly , a s th e partie s ha dfi-amedth e issue
. I t recognize dtha t

"[t]h e Complainan t

allege s tha t

AMS-Olympi c Nashville , aJoin t

Ventur e (th e Hudso n Group)...faile dt o mee t th e 15. 7 percen t

contrac t goal tha t wa s se t i n th e solicitation. " DD , a t 18 . An dit s formulatio n o f Issu e 1 fo r

determinatio nencompasse dboth whethe r th e Join t

Ventur e me t

th e contrac t

concessio n goa l an dwhethe r MNA A complie dwith Part 23 . Id
. Moreover , th e D D purporte dt o mak e specifi c findings tha t that "Responden t

counte dth e Hudso n Group' s propose damoun t o f ACDB E participatio n (1 7 percent ) correctl y .. . an dtha t th e Hudso n Grou p me t

th e ACDB E contrac t

goa l o f 15. 7 percent " basedo n evidenc e indicatin g tha t "ACDB E participatio n o f 1 7 percen t

was attribute dt o th e join t ventur e participatio n o f

Olympi c Supply. " Id , a t 1 9 (emphasi s added)
. Wha t th e D D faile dt o do , an dth e erro r identifie di n th e appeal , was t o mak e inquirie s an dfindings necessary t o conclud e tha t th e Hudson-Olympi c join t ventur e satisfie dACDB E requisite s an dgoal s and , thus , t o recogniz e tha t th e recor ddi dnot

contai n evidenc e t o support MNAA' s contentio n tha t i t ha dsatisfie dit s responsibilitie s i n scrutinizin g th e Hudson-Olympi c join t ventur e unde r

th e FAA' s Join t

Ventur e Guidance
. Thes e responsibilitie s include dwha t airport s ar e require dt o d o i n reviewin g join t ventur e participation , se e Ite m10 , Ex . 3 3 a t 11-18 , monitorin g ACDB E participatio n i n join t ventures , se e Ite m10 , Ex . 3 3 at 23-25 , an dcoimtin g ACDB E participatio n i n join t ventures . Se e Ite m10 , Ex . 3 3 a t 18-23 . I n short , th e D D recognize dan dfirame

dth e issu e t o b e determine da s th e broa dquestio n whethe r MNA A properl y evaluate dth e join t

ventur e participatio n o f Olympi c Suppl y but

the n completel y ignore dth e

^ Se e also , e.g. , 4 9 C.F.R . § 23.55 : Ho w d o recipient s coun t

ACDB E participatio n towar dgoal s for item s othe r

tha n car rentals ? (a ) Yo u coun t

onl y ACDB E participatio n that result s from acommerciall y usefii l fimction.... (d ) Whe n a n ACDB E perform s a s aparticipan t i n ajoin t venture , coun t

aportio n o f

th e gros s receipt s equa l t o th e distinct , clearl y define dportio n o f th e work o f th e concessio n tha t

th e ACDB E perform s wit h it s ow n force s towar dACDB E goals
. (i ) I f afirmha s no t

bee n certifie da s a n ACDB E i n accordanc e with th e standard s i n thi s part , d o no t coun t th e firm's participatio n towar dACDB E goals
. (j ) D o no t coun t th e work performe do r

gros s receipt s earne db y afir mafte r it s eligibility ha s bee n remove d towar dACDB E goals...
. (emphasi s added)
. 1 0requirement s an dFAA' s Join t Ventur e Guidanc e i n determinin g tha t th e join t ventur e properl y me t th e ACDB E goal s an dMNA A properl y administere dit s program . Tha t i s th e erro r

properl y identifie dfromth e D D an dth e recor dan draise do n appeal
. WHEREFORE , Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc. , respectfull y request s tha t it s Motio n t o Supplemen t

b e grante dan dtha t

MNAA' s Motio n t o Strik e b e denied
.

ResifeectfuM

y submitted
. ThonigsJiJlenderso n Henderso n La w Firm , PLL C 142 5 K Sti-eet , NW , Suit e 35 0 Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) 587-568 7 Telephon e (202 ) 587-560 1 Facsimil e Counse l fo r

Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc .

1 1CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s day serve dth e foregoin g Oppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n Fo r Immediat e Sta

y An dA n Extensio n O f

Tim e T o Fil e Repl y o n th e followin g person s at th e followin g addresses , b y first clas s mai l thi s 27t h day o f July , 2009 : Arthu r P . Ber g Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave. , Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , Ne w Yor

k 1002 2 Thoma s R . Devin e Kaplan Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Ave. , N.W . Suit e 80 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 LisaReynold s Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Robert Watso n MNA A On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , TN 3721 4

Thoma s JHSenderso n Counse l fo r

Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc .

1 2