< c c Ul 

# I n U . U J < O S I E I

- S " o t - U l o < t - o a . u. z LU O < Q U I O ! L u . O K5

—" > r^ = 2 8 i n < ^ ° nl £< ^ 2 </ > » Z < C N U l J c 5 U l 2 . f o . . E< U l 5 C Er 

### s i ' ^ < 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 2 5 2 6 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRlATIO] ^

WASHINGTON , D C JA N 1 1 20| O 

# rn \ LH /
RPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AG O m RDM , LLC , Complainant ,
TE D STEVEN S ANCHORAG E INTERNATIONA L AIRPORT ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-1 4 s ^ REPL Y T O ANSWE ROPPOSIN G ACCEPTANC E O FLATE-FILE D ANSWE R G ) Responden t

hereb y replie s t o RDM' s reques t tha t th e Directo r

den y acceptanc e o f

Respondent' s answer . RD M trie s t o discredi t Respondent' s showin g o f goo dcaus e fo

r filing it s answe r

aday pas t

due , bu t fail s t o sho w any real prejudic e t o RD M fro mth e tardines s o f that filing. Respondent' s goo dcause . Responden t was , indeed , give n n o extr atim e unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.1 7 du e t o th e Thanksgivin g Holiday . Ha dth e holiday adde dtime . Respondent' s Answe r

migh t wel l hav e bee n timel y withou t nee dfo r reques t fo r acceptance . Instead , th e holiday reduce dth e numbe r o f regular busines s day s withi n th e tim e fo r answer . Thoug h admittedl y no t extendin g th e deadline , th e holiday contribute s t o goo dcaus e fo

r late filing. Althoug h it

i s als o tru e that

th e Alask aAttorne y General' s Offic e ha s man y lawyer s an dstaff

, th e undersigned , whos e ankl e injur y impede dpreparatio n o f th e answer , i s th e onl y counse l assigne dprimaril y t o th e legal concern s o f th e Alask a Repl y t o Answe r

Opposin g Acceptanc e o f Late-File dAnswe r RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 of4 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< c c Ul S o

- i >

U
. U l

h - U l c c X < ^ - o , u . \ji o O u j o o o

_— " > « I 3 o > S O m » 5 Z - < i n < ^ ^ o > t c 2 o <

o O Q Z < C

M < , . U l 2 i £ Ko . . O K < U l X 5 c c z o o o o Z u l I I < . ^ o a S z 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 

# 9

Internationa l Airport s System . Th e injury , whic hrequire dx-ray s an dmedical evaluation , occurre dmid-way throug hpreparatio n o f th e answer . Hadit

bee n more significant , counse l migh t wel l hav e requeste dassistanc e o r extension . It

wa s mor e time-effectiv e t o try t o catc hup withweeken dwor k tha n t o tr

y t o brin g a

n unfamilia

r attorne y o r

othe r staf f membe r up-to-spee ddu e t o counsel' s injury . Th e injur y does , however , contribut e t o goo dcaus e fo r delay o f aday o r two . Responden t

agree s tha t

th e posta l cler

k bear s n o responsibility fo r th e lat e filing. Counse l merel y relate dwhat transpire dt o explai n an y apparen t inconsistenc y betwee n counsel' s certification s an dpostmark information . RD M doe s no t

addres s th e contributin g goo dcaus e o f th e tim e burde n t o assemble , number , cit e an dcop y th e larg e recor din thi s matter . Instead , an dironically , RD M assert s that

i t wa s prejudice dbecaus e th e additiona l tim e allowe dcounse l t o "stuf f th e answe r

"ful l o f selectiv e portion s o f

materials. " Responden t

wen t t o length s t o provid e complet e copie s o f documents , unlik e RDM' s submissio n o f onl y "selective " pages . Thi s effor

t t o provid e th e FA A withamor e complet e an dcontextua l recor dcos t Responden t

tim e in documen t

management . An y effec t o n th e quality o f

Respondent' s answe r i s no t th e typ e o r

"prejudice " t o RD M tha t woul dwarran t

rejectio n o f Respondent' s answer .

RD M suggest s Responden t actuall y hadfromth e origina l submissio n o f th e complain t

a t th e en do f

Septembe r

t o prepar e it s answer . It i s tru e that

Responden t ha da n opportunity t o begi n it s evaluatio n earlier . Responden t correctl y anticipate dthat th e FA A woul ddismis s th e complaint , bu t coul dno t

kno w whethe r

or whe n RD M Reply t o Answe r

Opposin g Acceptanc e o f Late-File dAnswe r RDM . LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 of4 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< ( C U l 

### 5 o U . Ul ^ = 

### 5 6 S < I - U l a X < 1 H & u . U l o O U l u E L u . O Z ' < m < ti i ^ o > E C 3 C O ! o mz tf C M o a . g < X U J" o ct o . . O £< U

l X5 c c z o o o o z u : X X S z

_< 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 migh t

re-file , or

whethe r th e FA A woul daccep t

th e re-file dcomplaint . Indeed , fo r th e reason s state di n it s motio n t o dismiss . Responden t believe s th e re-file dcomplain t faile d t o cur e th e lac k

o f showin g o f

direc t an dsubstantia l effec t

tha t warrante dth e origina l dismissal . Responden t

full y expecte dth e FA A t o rejec t th e re-file dcomplaint , a s well . An y opportunity t o begi n wor k o n a n answe r before th e FA A dockete dth e complain t doe s no t undercu t th e goo dcause s for

delay tha t

aros e thereafter . RD M make s n o showin g tha t th e lat e filing wa s prejudicia l t o it i n an y way . FA A preceden t

demonstrate s that

upo n ashowin g o f

goo dcaus e fo

r late filing, absen t th e othe r party' s showin g tha t

th e lat e filing cause dit

suc hgreat

prejudic e a s t o out-weigh s th e goo dcaus e shown—an dt o out-weig hth e valu e o f th e informatio n t o th e FAA' s ow n evaluatio n o f th e issues'—th e FA A wil l accep t th e filing. Responden t respectfull y request s th e FA A t o accep t Respondent' s Answer . DATE D thi s 29" ' day o f

December , 200 9 at

Anchorage , Alaska . DANIE LS . SULLIVA N ATTORNE Y GENERA L

Joh n L . Steine r Senio r Assistan t Attorne y General AB A No . 871110 8

' Se e Appalachia n Sta r Ventures , Inc . v . Tri-City Airpor t Com m'n , FA A Docke t No . 16-96-02 , (Jun e 25 , 1997 ) (Director s Determination) , p . 14 . Repl y t o Answe r

Opposin g Acceptanc e o f Late-File dAnswe r RDM . LLC V

. AN C Pag e 3 of4 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< a

Ul

U . U l < O 5 o c I - S " " s < S 5 E 3 : J C t - o a . u . z l U o < o ' U l u U . U . O C M t i n _ 3 S S 0 5 " °

. ^ < 1 0 2 U J l O Z< C M U l _ | J- . 5 U l a E < U l 3 c c Z 

### s i "

_< 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 2 5 2 6 Certificat e O f Servic e I hereb y certif

y that o n Decembe r

29 , 2009 , I hav e thi s da y serve dth e foregoin g REPL Y T O ANSWE ROPPOSIN G ACCEPTANC E O FLATE-FILE D ANSWE Ro n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresses : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Attn. : FA A Part

1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Shau n Debenha m Managin g Member s o f

RDM , LL C 296 0 C Street , Suit e 20 2 Anchorage , A K

9950 3 via : D han ddelivery n faxe d S maile d

Joh n L . Steine r SeniorAssistan t

Attorne y Genera l Attorne y General' s Offic e Attorney s fo

r Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airport

Repl y t o Answe r

Opposin g Acceptanc e o f Late-File dAnswe r RDM . LL C V

. AN C Pag e 4 of4 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4