DEC 3 0 

Certificate of Service " j A<^ 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing ANSWER to Motion to /lOobtn-— 

Late-filed Answer on the following persons at the following addresses by Certified Mail: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Christine E. Klein, AAE 

Deputy Commissioner for Aviation and Acting Airport Director 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

PO Box 196960 

Anchorage, AK 99519-6960 

P: (907) 269-0724 

E: Christine.klein@alaska.gov 

rth Dated this l&Z day of December. 2009. C 5 

Shaun Debenham 

Member, Debenham Properties, LLC 

Managing Member of RDM, LLC 

2960 C Street, Suite 202 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

W: (907) 562-9330 

F: (907) 562-9331 

E: shaundebenham@alaska.net 

CO.C3 

CO 
ANSWER: MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE-FILED ANSWER 

December 16, 2009 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Docket No. 16-09-14 

ANSWE R t o MOTIO N TO ACCEPT LATE-FILE D ANSWE R 

RDM, LLC V. Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

ANSWER 

RDM, LLC (RDM) asks that the Director deny the acceptance of the Motion to Accept 

Late-Filed Answer filed by the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA). 

TSAIA has failed to show good cause for the late filed pleading. The reason given, 

i.e., that the Thanksgiving Holiday, an ankle injury and a postal clerk not processing 

the Express Mail form quickly enough, do not hold weight. 

First, holidays are not included when computing the time lines of a filing. Section 

§16.17.b states, "The last of a time period is included in a computation of time 

unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday for the FAA, in which case, the time 

period runs until the end of the day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday." 

The excuse that the Thanksgiving Holiday prevented TSAIA to submit their Answer 

on time is not correct. If anything, the Thanksgiving Holiday gave TSAIA extra time. 

Second, an ankle injury should not prevent a Department the size of the Attorney 

General's Office for the State of Alaska from submitting an Answer on time. As a 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, John Steiner has a staff at his disposal to address 

the RDM complaint. 

Third, the argument that Mr. Steiner lost track of time and places responsibility for 

his tardiness on the postal clerk who processed the Answer just past midnight 

(meaning that the Answer was now two days late) is not justification. Rather it is a 

lack of professional integrity on Mr. Steiner's part. 

Fourth, TSAIA has actually had since September 25, 2009 to prepare their Answer to 

RDM's complaint. On September 25, 2009 RDM submitted its original complaint 

against TSAIA only to have it dismissed without prejudice because it was incomplete 

on a few requirements. 

Finally, the prejudice caused by filing the Answer two days late is very significant. 

Two additional days allowed Mr. Steiner and his staff to stuff their Answer full of 

selective portions of materials, half truths, and vagaries that avoid addressing the 

real issue of the complaint of RDM, which is that TSAIA violated the Airport 

Improvement Program (authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 

1982), as pertaining to Title 49 United States Code §47107 (a) General Written 

Assurances because TSAIA has engaged in economic discrimination and has failed to 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 1 of 2 
ANSWER: MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE-FILED ANSWER 

comply with Federal Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination and Federal 

Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights. 

As referenced above, RDM's original complaint (dated September 25, 2009) was 

dismissed without prejudice because it was incomplete. After talking to Ray Veatch, 

of the FAA, it became clear that the dismissal was due to relatively small mistakes on 

the part of RDM in its filing. Although small and relatively insignificant, RDM had not 

followed the rules prescribed in 14 C.F.R. Part 16 and therefore it was dismissed 

without prejudice. RDM asks that the Director do the same for TSAIA. Although two 

days is a relatively short time frame, TSAIA did not adhere to the rules prescribed in 

14 C.F.R. Part 16 and should therefore be treated as RDM was, by the FAA denying 

TSAIA's MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE-FILED ANSWER. 

Accordingly, we ask that the Director denies TSAIA's MOTION TO ACCEPT LATEFILED ANSWER and the corresponding ANSWER to RDM's Complaint. 

Sincerely, 

^ £LL ^ 

Shaun Debenham 

Member, Debenham Properties, LLC 

Managing Member of RDM, LLC 

2960 C Street, Suite 202 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

W: (907) 562-9330 

F: (907) 562-9331 

E: shaundebenham(g)alaska.net 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 2 of 2