Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Amendment to 

(S EI WE B 

APR 2 6 JOn IH/ 

against Ted Stevens International Airport on the following persons at the following 

addresses by Certified Mail: 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

t he Compladn t AGC-600 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docl<et, 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 

Dated this 14th day of April. 2010. 

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 

- ^ 

i'3 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

April 14, 2010 

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 

Amendment to: ^^RDM" complaint against Ted Stevens 

Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA) — Docket No. 16-09-

14 

RE: In the matter before the Chief Council of the FAA of "RDM, LLC (RDM) v Ted 

Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA) and in accordance with the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport 

Proceedings, 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16, Please accept these tendered 

additional comment s and thi s amendment as offered, t o expand the nature 

and for m of our past filings : 

To Whom It May Concern: 

INTRODUCTIO N 

On September 25, 2009; RDM, LLC (RDM) filed a formal complaint against Ted 

Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA) in accordance with the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport 

Proceedings, 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16. 

Shaun Debenham, an authorized agent of RDM, 

correspondence with the FAA in regard to this complaint. 

LLC, has coordinated 

RDM Contact Information: 

Shaun Debenham 

2960 C Street, Suite 202 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

P: (907) 562-9330 

F: (907) 562-9331 

E: shaundebenham@alaska.net 

TSAIA Contact Information: 

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 

As previously stated and expressed within the original filing: RDM is a member of 

AGLAD Postmark, LLC (AGLAD) who until February 4, 2009 had a long-term 55 year 

ground lease with TSAIA. RDM has standing to file the complaint, because RDM has 

directly and substantially been affected by TSAIA's noncompliance as documented 

below and RDM has tried in good faith to engage TSAIA in third party negotiations to 

resolve RDM's grievances to address said faulty public policy as previously outlined. 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 1 of 9 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

In addition and after a comprehensive review of the tendered filing, additional 

subject matter literature review, and the rereading of various public documents 

applicable to our previous submission to the FAA "Chief Council" in the matter of: 

"RDM V TSAIA" (Docket No. 16-09-11); we ask to tender the enclosed as additional 

relevant comments for consideration therein. The previous complaint submission to 

the FAA under Title 49 United States Code §47107 (PART 16) can be more fully 

understood and placed into appropriate context when viewed within: the scope of 

past TSAIA lease policy, the available public record thereof, other lease policy 

arraignments granted in favor of various airport operators other than RDM, and 

information as reasonably found in the public record serve to form the basis of this 

amendment to our filing. 

As we have refined our assessment of this complex situation with further analysis 

and investigation, we would tender via this amendment that: there are significant 

TSAIA policy failures that highlight and strengthen our claim that there has been a 

significant breach of public policy and a strain to the given public interest. Further, 

we pray that with your leave, this effort will focus the previous analysis offered, to 

clearly exhibit (within Title 49 United States Code §47107 (PART 16) and within 

accepted FAA policy) how these policy issues serve to more completely frame our 

complaint, and must be viewed in such a manner to clearly highlight the many public 

policy failures of the TSAIA as it attaches to: ''Our defined Airport Project at the "Ted 

Stevens International Airport' (TSIA). These specific comments do define these 

harmful policy elements as they attach to our analysis and even the greater public 

interest at large. We believe these expressions can enhance FAA understanding of 

how we hold that the damages and torts we suffer are emblematic of these utter 

failures of the protected public interest and proper public policy to be enforced by the 

Chief Council's enforcement thereof, with a finding of "non-compliance". The 

following notations of TSAIA public policy and procedural failures strongly buttress 

the understanding and statement of fact found within our filing and may assist the 

FAA in defining such for the proper adjudication of our previous submissions. 

Specifically, we wish to reinforce that: if not for the misapplication of such extreme 

demands and divergent application of public policy by the TSAIA, and if not for such 

extreme application thereof such public policy being applied in so inflexible a manner 

RDM would be whole. However, due to the inconsistent application of TSAIA lease 

policy, RDM has been severely harmed and by connection thereof, so has the public 

interest. The specific TSAIA Policy failures define that: 

• Public service offerings will not be expanded or enhanced for the flying users 

of Alaska 

• Competition will not be enhanced, failing to lower costs to airport 

stakeholders 

• The public interest to: encourage a diverse set of airport service stocks also 

suffers. 

For these reasoned issues and others, this amendment is tendered to focus and 

highlight your understanding of how the plight of RDM has suffered. They also serve 

to represent and define these inappropriate policy actions by TSAIA, and define 

specifically our claim where: 

"RDM alleges that TSAIA has violated Title 49 United States Code §47107 (a) 

General Written Assurances because TSAIA has engaged in economic discrimination 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 2 of 9 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

and has failed to comply with Federal Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination and Federal Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights." 

COMPLAINT 

We hold that our situation is emblematic of: the application of inconsistent and 

poorly applied airport lease policy by the TSAIA that harms the public interests 

generally, and RDM specifically. This failed lease policy has significantly affected not 

just our project, but also diminishes the fulfillment of the needs held by all aviation 

stakeholders of Alaska in FAA funding of the public facility. The needs of the many 

have been subverted for the benefits of the few. Those few being the lessees' at the 

airport that have been a direct beneficiary of much different terms and demands by 

TSAIA, than those which RDM must submit to by the TSAIA. The interests of RDM 

and even to a greater degree the public at large are stifled and refused by failed 

TSAIA policy. 

The record indicates that some gain great benefit and favor by faulty and 

inconsistent TSAIA public policy, while some (like RDM) suffer due to such widely 

divergent policy. This only insures that under such failed public TSAIA policy, which 

all users suffer: 

• Reduced aviation services 

• Are caused to pay much higher aviation prices 

• All aviation uses suffer stifled innovation and service offerings 

What is the harm of such failed policy? It harms the public interest in encouraging 

the variety of needed public services that might otherwise flourish at the public 

facility. It undermines all opportunities to partner and expand services under: 

measured, well formulated, and most importantly: consistent and attainable 

TgAIA policy standards that "levels the playing field" for all aviation service providers 

including RDM. 

After reading the case literature, applicable public statements, other filings and that 

of the TSAIA, we hold that our claim and belief that public policy and the public 

interests have been breached, is valid. This is due to the inconsistent application of 

TSAIA public airport lease policies. Our concise complaint to the "Chief Council" and 

situation defines such and begs your determination and finding of "Non-Compliance". 

The past benefits, allowances and latitude granted to other lease holders' that have 

found themselves to be in a very similar situations to what were thrust upon RDM by 

both circumstance and contrived TSAIA policy, defines the basis of our complaint. 

Such must also be viewed in the light that: such failed policy does defile the public 

interest, which is supposedly supported by the many millions of dollars in FAA/public 

infrastructure that Alaska's flying stakeholders depend upon. 

We pray that by these statements, we can draw your attentions to the insight of our 

plight, and increase your recognition of our situation. It must be viewed in the light 

of how other similarly situated parties were dealt with by the TSAIA, that held a 

similar function and service potential we were developing for local aviation 

stakeholders. In our analysis, this policy issue is perhaps the most relevant aspect of 

how TSAIA lease policy was inconsistently applied to our detriment and insures that 

"beneficial competition" for the public interest has been stifled and discouraged in 

Alaska. We hold that: The interests of the FAA in promoting aviation in a 

dependent area like Alaslca, is a primary policy tasic and interest issue for 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 3 of 9 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

FAA attention. Such need is not being served by allowing "sweet-heart 

deals" for some, and only offering cold demanding policy that stifles others. 

Such failed TSAIA policy is rife by example in our filing. Our claim to the FAA 

must be seen in the light of this failed and harmful TSAIA policy. Our claim 

serves as the crux of such failed TSAIA public policy, whether by benignneglect, or direct plan. 

We do hold that such policy by the TSAIA does depart in the extreme from: accepted 

FAA and public policy, precedent, and procedural norms. This failure in our opinion, 

must define not only our interests, but the interests of the entire public interest in 

the Airport. By extension we find that our only option to correct such TSAIA failed 

policy, is to ask for your comprehensive review of: FAA funding, grants, and other 

airport support under PART-16. By withholding pubiic monies (via a finding of 

non-compliance) it is clear that the FAA can compel compliance of these 

vital public policy Interests. RDM has been at the mercies of failed TSAIA 

public policies to date and pray that under our Part-16 filings, we can detail 

to the Chief Council our clear claims and how the FAA can command the 

restoration of reason. 

We would propose: that our harms are a clear schematic of these failed processes, 

policies, and applications of TSAIA lease demands upon RDM. These harms clearly 

represent the specific notations of TSAIA policy failures, and run counter to: FAA 

policy, precedent, and the publics' interest in the Airport. We hold that there are 

many well reasoned FAA Policy statements, which can be very instructive in defining 

such policy failures. We do hold that it is the direct obligation of the TSAIA to 

equitably: define, enforce and apply consistent public lease policy to one and all. 

Such reasoned public policy must ensure that lease terms not only define limits and 

actions as performance metrics, but also must be part of well thought-out public 

policy process that insures uniform and consistent application of standards for one 

and all. This has not been done in our case, where the RDM lease terms have only 

yoked our efforts to serve the aviation stakeholders of Alaska, whom depend upon 

the Airport for their use and livelihoods. 

As such, we offer and tender this amendment to our past filings. We feel that it 

defines our harms and torts in the specific context of our situation, and as an 

example of the root-cause of failed TSAIA public lease policy upon the airport. This 

harm is endemic of a larger issue that refines and highlight for the FAA and "Chief 

Council" how such inconsistent, ill-conceived, and inappropriate policy by the TSAIA, 

has in fact worked counter to the stated public interest. We hold that the clear and 

unfettered voice in our filing, must point your attention to this failed public policy as 

the defining issue thereof. While our complaint does define our harms, it also stands 

as a clear example of how all aviation users suffer. This must serve as the focus your 

recognition, investigation, and adjudication, concerning our claim and by extension 

the violation of the "written Grant Assurances". 

These situational facts must focus all attention upon such policy divergence and by 

recognition to such, be seen as an extreme policy failure by TSAIA. The potential for 

an RDM project will not be allowed under such a policy and will not meet the public 

demands for additional services. Specifically, if TSAIA policy had held to the same 

level of accommodation and flexibility offered others' in the recent oast and as 

outlined in several public disclosures, the following two main elements would not 

have been forced upon RDM: 

RDM V. TSAIA-Page 4 of 9 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

1. The TSAIA would never have placed such draconian demands for performance 

standards as noted in the opening negotiations of our lease terms. A 

reasonable person can only construe that: since TSAIA had never demanded 

these difficult terms of others as public policy in the past, to demand such 

now of RDM, is in fact an unattainable demand. 

2. Such TSAIA policy demands, do define significant and divergent terms offered 

to RDM. In fact, an inflection point must be recognized in the clear and 

unyielding fact that: other airport lease-holders have been granted wide 

latitude from such public policy standards and lease elements by TSAIA, yet 

RDM has been held to a much higher standard of performance and demand. 

This unique TSAIA demand does define the policy failure where RDM has 

never been offered of even allowed the consideration offered all others. 

We believe that: with the emergence of the faltering economy of 2007 to present, a 

reasonable person might believe that TSAIA policy would look for solutions over 

intransigence, yet not so. A valid question that frames our policy concern is: would a 

reasonable person believe that under such a scenario, such faulty demands to RDM 

be ignored, or even be compounded by these draconian demands to ultimately 

"setup RDM for failure and loss" of all? The harm to RDM pales, when compared to 

the losses the public and aviation stakeholders that use the aviation assets of the 

State of Alaska suffer, in this unique setting, under the authority of the TSAIA. We 

believe that this issue must frame to context of our complaint. By way of reference, 

two of the most impactful PART-16 cases affirmed by the Chief Council's office, that 

we believe does apply to our situation are those that were affirmed in: 

• Chesapeake, Virginia (see Chesapeake Airport Authority CAA: 2001) 

• Key-West, FL (Key-West International Airport Authority: 2008) 

These two "affirmed cases define much of our complaint of failed policy and serve to 

correlate closely to our situation, as they also deal extensively with important policy 

aspects of our situation: 

• Monopoly effects, by the disparate treatment we have noted as it relates to 

the manner and type of treatment we suffered and others' have benefited 

from. 

• Economic Discrimination, wherein we have defined within our claim; that local 

policy by the sponsor has favored others by granting latitude of performance 

standards, yet have been used as a foil to hold RDM to great harm, by 

demanding in the formative start and later, to a much higher and malevolent 

standard of such by policy, especially given the performance of other's as 

found under the same issue and nature, and within all of our dealings with the 

TSAIA. 

• We pose and claim specifically: That such inconsistent policy has created not 

only harm to our project, but has by default granted others benefit that may 

rise to the granting of rights and benefits over our situation that may be so 

extreme in nature, form and effect so as to offend a reasonable person and is 

by action: a granting of an "Exclusive Right" or at least lead to a finding of 

"Economic Discrimination". 

As such, the defined interest of the FAA and people in both "policing and promoting 

aviation" in the United States and its territories (especially Alaska), must be 

RDM V. TSAIA-Page 5 of 9 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

recognized. We feel that our situation clearly defines how TSAIA public policy has 

been: 

• Improper, related to the agreed written grant assurances to: enhance the 

public interest 

• Inconsistent public policy precedent defined by the FAA, for such public 

facilities 

• Poorly formed in both nature and function, to protect the public's interests 

• Works directly to the detriment of the stated need to encourage and support 

airport services demanded by the users of Alaska and the public, as enhanced 

by public funds 

• Fails the stated purposes of countless expansion projects funded by the FAA 

• Fails the test by any measure to: increase the services available at the airport 

and most especially to the interest held by the public; to promote and benefit 

for the competition of and to benefit from the increase of service offerings 

thereto, that they so dearly depend upon for their livelihoods and even lives 

in this unique setting and place. 

We feel that this policy failure must serve as a core principal that defines how TSAIA 

public policy has not just failed RDM, but the larger public interest also. As the core 

element of our submissions, we would focus and highlight for the "Chief Council" the 

importance of this policy issue and how it directly relates to our situations with the 

TSAIA. We strongly believe that our situation highlights not only our singular 

damaged standing, but also serves as an emblematic symptom of how such 

inconsistent applications of capricious TSAIA lease policy. This problematic and 

cavalier application of such divergent public TSAIA policy, from one lessee to the 

next (RDM in this case) only has insured that the strategic investment of public funds 

has been thwarted in every respect. Specifically, our project to offer a broader range 

of vital and demanded aviation services by the flying public in Alaska will not be 

offered under the failed standing of such TSAIA public lease policy. Such a clear-cut 

failure of TSAIA public policy wil l not serve the public interest and must 

serve as the primary basis for the "Chief Council of the FAA" to recognize 

and hold a finding of "Non-Compliance" by the TSAIA; at the Ted Stevens 

International Airport. 

Conclusion: 

By our situation and within this complaint amendment, we would like to draw your 

attention to these public lease policy failures of the TSAIA. Our situation only 

emphasis' the fact that public policy has been breached, which does deny good order 

to promote aviation to Alaska's Aviation Stakeholders. We hold that our complaint 

clearly notes the extreme differences between our contract terms^ TSAIA 

enforcement^ and the policv failure that frames our situation and should be the focalppint of FAA interest in our complaint. Even so, it clearly is not the only issue we rely 

upon to make our case... The duty of the FAA does run parallel to our interests and 

we respectfully demand the "Correction" of such offending, failed and breached 

TSAIA public interests and policy by: the denial of continued FAA/public funding 

under a finding of "Non-Compliance". The shuttering of further public funding to 

TSAIA until proper and appropriate corrective actions are rendered would seem to be 

both reasonable and necessary. To resolve this situation, we feel that the FAA must 

motivate the offending agents of the TSAIA to "re-think" their positions of such 

detrimental policy and by effect, infringement of the public interest. They must be 

RDM V. TSAIA-Page 6 of 9 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

motivated to reconsider the impact this situation has had on the flying public in 

Alaska, where aviation is vital to our way of life and to our economy. 

We hold that when one views our situation in the light of: past FAA precedent, policy, 

and stated procedural issue, our situation is a clear example of failed public policy by 

the TSAIA. By causal action; our filings define and highlights the focus of failed or 

breached "Public Policy and Interest". Our claims of torts clearly are emblematic of 

and precisely define direct examples of such failed TSAIA public policy, which works 

to the detriment of the public interest... We would tender for your review as an 

amendment to our previous filing, that our situation is emblematic of a greater 

failure by the TSAIA and their failure to meet the requirements defined in the 

"written grant assurances" they are signatory to. We would also like to clearly 

emphasize how such issues were thrust upon us by the arbitrary and capricious 

policies of the TSAIA, the local and global economy, and even the turbulent economic 

conditions that created the "prefect-storm". The catalyst of such failed policy 

mandates however, served to derail our project, as found by the direct and indirect 

actions of the TSAIA. Our situation amounts to "unattainable" lease standards and 

performance metrics demanded by TSAIA, but not others. We pray for the reasoned 

and insightful intervention of the FAA in this intractable situation, via the processes 

of "PART-16" to right and to restore proper public policy for all. This request and 

thinking can be seen in the citation below, and as defined by the clear intent found in 

FAA Order 5190.6B. 

The following states in part: 

''This Order sets forth policies and procedures for the FAA Airport 

Compliance Program. The Order is not regulatory and is not controlling 

with regard to airport sponsor conduct; rather, it establishes the 

policies and procedures for FAA personnel to follow in carrying out the 

FAA's responsibilities for ensuring airport compliance. It provides basic 

guidance for FAA personnel in interpreting and administering the 

various continuing commitments airport owners make to the United 

States as a condition for the grant of federal funds or the conveyance 

of federal property for airport purposes. The Order, inter alia, analyzes 

the various obligations set forth in the standard airport sponsor 

assurances, addresses the application of the assurances in the 

operation of public-use airports, and facilitates interpretation of the 

assurances by FAA personnel." 

Under these expressions, we all count upon the FAA to work for compliance and 

order in the use and development of our publicly funded aviation assets. We 

understand that the FAA cannot "command" compliance of a sponsor. They can 

however, by use of the clear standards of 5190.6B and other such policy references, 

encourage the sponsor to abide by not just the letter of such, but also to show 

deference to the spirit of such policy compliance to further the public interest. The 

FAA clearly does not determine "non-compliance" lightly or by default, but it must be 

invoked in this case to protect the public interest when all else has failed. When such 

policy failures are found and recognized, the FAA may be the last rational arbiter for 

a reasoned remedy. We pray that the FAA will, by defining corrective action and 

inducing corrections to TSAIA policy, and by proper funding restrictions under the 

law; induce the TSAIA to remedy their failed public policies that we suffer under and 

that run counter to the public interest. 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 7 of 9 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

We find it necessary to make this amended filing under: Title 49 United States Code 

§47107 or "PART 16" against TSAIA, to highlight in clear detail that our filing is but a 

symptom of the greater issue of failed TSAIA public lease policy and the public 

interest held by all aviation stakeholders. We would ask for the leave of the "Chief 

Council" to amend our filing to include these comments for your consideration, 

defining: How the TSAIA public lease policy failures have not only harmed our 

situation, but also that of the entire flying public at the airport and even to some 

extent, the economy of Alaska given the extensive reliance our area has on aviation. 

These failures in the application of such public lease policies and decisions are 

indicative of "inconsistent and unattainable policies" both of which FAA policy, past 

precedent and policy enforcement have spoken to, on many occasions. As a result of 

these TSAIA policy failures and breaches; grave harm has been done to not only our 

business relations, but also in the grander schemes to the public interests of all 

aviation users of the public facility, that so many depend upon in this unique State. 

We tender that our filing under "PART 16" indicates primary failure in: how "public 

policy was breached" and how the TSAIA either violated by standard, policy or 

omission; the demands of settled FAA public policy standards at this significant 

public facility so many depend upon for their lives and livelihoods. 

As w e understand it: The two primary areas of interest found within the mission of 

the FAA as defined by statute, policy and public expectation includes: 

The public interes t to: "Promot e Aviation" and t o "Regulate Aviation" fairl y 

for all... 

We strongly believe that the test necessary for a finding of NON-COMPLIANCE has 

been met, at the Ted Stevens International Airport. The harms and torts described 

within our past filings and herein, serve to highlight this failure of public policy. It 

also defines the greater harm to the recognized "Public Interests" at the Airport and 

as such: it is vital that tine FAA (via a finding of "Non-Compliance") demand, induce, 

and assess such corrective actions as necessary of the TSAIA. We feel that the 

process of the FAA under PART-16 will make us whole and more importantly and by 

attachment: protect and secure the public interests in this vital and important 

publicly funded airport facility used by so many. 

These issues serve as the core claims of our "PART 16" filing. Thev demand proper 

adjudication by the FAA and are clearly found in many past rulings by the FAA Chief 

Council. 

Our situation defines an utter and complete failure of public lease policy by the 

TSAIA, and this failure must be corrected by a ruling of "non-comoliance" under 

Part-16of the ACT. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Shaun Debenham 

Member, Debenham Properties, LLC 

Managing Member of RDM, LLC 

2960 C Street, Suite 202 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 8 of 9 
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

W: (907) 562-9330 

F: (907) 562-9331 

E: shaundebenham(a)alaska.net 

Certified Delivery. Christine E. Klein, AAE 

Deputy Commissioner for Aviation and Acting Airport Director 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 9 of 9