< 

cc 

Ul 

In 

U. UJ < 

O S IE 

I- S "o 

t- Ul o 

< t- o 

a. u. z 

LUO < 

Q U I 

O 

!L 

u. 

O 

K 5 

— "> r^ = 28 in <^ ° 

n l£ <^ 

2 </> » 

Z < CN 

Ul J c5 Ul 2. f o .. 

E < Ul 

5 CE r 

s i ' 

^ < 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRlATIO]^ 

WASHINGTON, DC 

JAN 1 1 20|O 

rn\ 

LH/ 

RPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW, AGO m 

RDM, LLC, 

Complainant, 

TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-09-14 s^ 

REPLY TO ANSWER OPPOSING 

ACCEPTANCE OF LATE-FILED ANSWER 

G) 

Respondent hereby replies to RDM's request that the Director deny 

acceptance of Respondent's answer. RDM tries to discredit Respondent's showing of 

good cause for filing its answer a day past due, but fails to show any real prejudice to 

RDM from the tardiness of that filing. 

Respondent's good cause. Respondent was, indeed, given no extra time 

under 14 C.F.R. § 16.17 due to the Thanksgiving Holiday. Had the holiday added time. 

Respondent's Answer might well have been timely without need for request for 

acceptance. Instead, the holiday reduced the number of regular business days within the 

time for answer. Though admittedly not extending the deadline, the holiday contributes 

to good cause for late filing. 

Although it is also true that the Alaska Attorney General's Office has 

many lawyers and staff, the undersigned, whose ankle injury impeded preparation of the 

answer, is the only counsel assigned primarily to the legal concerns of the Alaska 

Reply to Answer Opposing Acceptance of Late-Filed Answer 

RDM, LLC V. ANC 

Page 1 of4 

Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

cc 

Ul 

So 

- i > 

U. Ul 

h- Ul 

cc X 

< ^-

o, u. \ji o 

O u j 

o 

o 

o 

_ — "> « I 3 o> S O m » 5 

Z - < in 

< ^ ^ o> 

tc 2 o <o 

OQ Z < CM 

< ,. Ul 2i £ K o .. 

O K < Ul 

X 5 cc z 

o o o o 

Z ul I I 

< .^ o a S z 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

9 

International Airports System. The injury, which required x-rays and medical 

evaluation, occurred mid-way through preparation of the answer. Had it been more 

significant, counsel might well have requested assistance or extension. It was more 

time-effective to try to catch up with weekend work than to try to bring an unfamiliar 

attorney or other staff member up-to-speed due to counsel's injury. The injury does, 

however, contribute to good cause for delay of a day or two. 

Respondent agrees that the postal clerk bears no responsibility for the late 

filing. Counsel merely related what transpired to explain any apparent inconsistency 

between counsel's certifications and postmark information. 

RDM does not address the contributing good cause of the time burden to 

assemble, number, cite and copy the large record in this matter. Instead, and ironically, 

RDM asserts that it was prejudiced because the additional time allowed counsel to 

"stuff the answer "full of selective portions of materials." Respondent went to lengths 

to provide complete copies of documents, unlike RDM's submission of only "selective" 

pages. This effort to provide the FAA with a more complete and contextual record cost 

Respondent time in document management. Any effect on the quality of Respondent's 

answer is not the type or "prejudice" to RDM that would warrant rejection of 

Respondent's answer. 

RDM suggests Respondent actually had from the original submission of 

the complaint at the end of September to prepare its answer. It is true that Respondent 

had an opportunity to begin its evaluation earlier. Respondent correctly anticipated that 

the FAA would dismiss the complaint, but could not know whether or when RDM 

Reply to Answer Opposing Acceptance of Late-Filed Answer 

RDM . LLC V. AN C 

Page 2 of4 

Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

(C 

Ul 

5o 

U. Ul 

^ = 

56 S< 

I- Ul 

a X 

<1 H & u. 

Ul o 

O Ul 

u 

E L u. O 

Z ' < m 

< tii ^ o> EC 3 CO !o m z tf CM 

o a . g 

< X UJ " 

oc t o .. O £ < Ul X 5 cc z 

o o o o 

z u: X X 

S z 

_ < 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

might re-file, or whether the FAA would accept the re-filed complaint. Indeed, for the 

reasons stated in its motion to dismiss. Respondent believes the re-filed complaint failed 

to cure the lack of showing of direct and substantial effect that warranted the original 

dismissal. Respondent fully expected the FAA to reject the re-filed complaint, as well. 

Any opportunity to begin work on an answer before the FAA docketed the complaint 

does not undercut the good causes for delay that arose thereafter. 

RDM makes no showing that the late filing was prejudicial to it in any 

way. FAA precedent demonstrates that upon a showing of good cause for late filing, 

absent the other party's showing that the late filing caused it such great prejudice as to 

out-weighs the good cause shown—and to out-weigh the value of the information to the 

FAA's own evaluation of the issues'—the FAA will accept the filing. Respondent 

respectfully requests the FAA to accept Respondent's Answer. 

DATED this 29"' day of December, 2009 at Anchorage, Alaska. 

DANIEL S. SULLIVAN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

John L. Steiner 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

ABA No. 8711108 

' See Appalachian Star Ventures, Inc. v. Tri-City Airport Comm 'n, FAA 

Docket No. 16-96-02, (June 25, 1997) (Directors Determination), p. 14. 

Reply to Answer Opposing Acceptance of Late-Filed Answer 

RDM. LLC V. ANC 

Page 3 of4 

Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

a 

Ul 

U. Ul < 

O 5 oc I- S "" 

s < S 

5 E 3: 

JC t- o 

a. u. z lU o < 

o 

' Ul 

u 

U . 

U . 

O 

CM 

t in _ 

3 S S 

05 " ° 

.^ < 10 

2 UJ lO 

Z < CM 

Ul _ | J-. 

5 Ul a 

E < Ul 

3 cc Z 

s i " 

_ < 

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 December 29, 2009, I have this day served the 

foregoing REPLY TO ANSWER OPPOSING ACCEPTANCE OF LATE-FILED 

ANSWER 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 

S mailed 

John L. Steiner 

SeniorAssistant Attorney General 

Attorney General's Office 

Attorneys for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

Reply to Answer Opposing Acceptance of Late-Filed Answer 

RDM. LLC V. ANC 

Page 4 of4 

Docket No. 16-09-14