## Certificat e o f Servic e

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s day serve dth e foregoin g Amendmen t t o 

# ( S E I WE B AP R2 6 JO n 

# IH /
agains t Te dSteven s Internationa l Airport o n th e followin g person s at th e followin g addresse s b y Certifie dMail : AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L t h e Compladn t AGC-60 0

Offic e o f th e Chie fCounse l Attention : FA

APart 1 6 Airpor t Proceeding s Docl<et , AGC-61 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , SW
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Christin e E
. Klein , AA E Deput yCommissione rfo rAviatio n an d Actin g Airpor t Directo r Te d Steven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t P O Bo x 19696 0 Anchorage , A K99519-696 0 P : (907 ) 269-072 4 E : christine.klein@alaska.go v Date dthi s 14t

hday o f April
. 2010
.
Shau n Debenha m Member , Debenha m Properties , LL C Managin g Membe ro f RDM , LL C 296 0 C Street , Suit e 20 2 Anchorage , A K9950 3 W : (907 ) 562-933 0 F : (907 ) 562-933 1 E : shaundebenham@alaska.ne t - ^ i' 3AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN T

Apri l 14 , 201 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Attention : FAAPar t 1 6 Airpor t Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , SW
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Docke t No
. 16-09-1 4 

### Amendmen t to : ^^RDM " complain t agains t Te d Steven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t (TSAIA ) —Docke t No
. 16-09 - 1 4 RE : I n th e matte rbefor e th e Chie fCounci l o fth e FAAo f"RDM , LL C (RDM ) vTe d Steven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t (TSAIA ) an d i n accordanc e wit h th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) Rule s o fPractic e fo rFederall yAssiste d Airpor t Proceedings , 1 4 Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s Par t 16 , Pleas e accep t thes e tendere d additiona l comment s an d thi s amendmen t a s offered , t o expan d th e natur e an d for m o f ou rpas t filings : T o Who m I t Ma yConcern : INTRODUCTIO N O n Septembe r25 , 2009 ; RDM , LL C (RDM ) file d a forma l complain t agains t Te d Steven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t (TSAIA ) i n accordanc e wit h th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) Rule s o fPractic e fo rFederall yAssiste d Airpor t Proceedings , 1 4 Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s Par t 16
. Shau n Debenham , a n authorize d agen t o fRDM , correspondenc e wit h th e FAAi n regar d t o thi s complaint
. LLC , ha s coordinate d
RD M Contac t Information : Shau n Debenha m 296 0 C Street , Suit e 20 2 Anchorage , A K9950 3 P : (907 ) 562-933 0 F : (907 ) 562-933 1 E : shaundebenham@alaska.ne t TSAI AContac t Information : Christin e E
. Klein , AA E Deput yCommissione rfo rAviatio n an d Actin g Airpor t Directo r Te d Steven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t PO Bo x19696 0 Anchorage , A K99519-696 0 P : (907 ) 269-072 4 E : Christine.klein@alaska.go v A s previousl ystate d an d expresse d withi n th e origina l filing : RD M i s a membe ro f AGLA D Postmark , LL C (AGLAD ) wh o unti l Februar y4 , 200 9 ha d a long-ter m 5 5 yea r groun d leas e wit h TSAIA
. RD M ha s standin g t o fil e th e complaint , becaus e RD M ha s directl yan d substantiall ybee n affecte d b yTSAIA' s noncomplianc e a s documente d belo wan d RD M ha s trie d i n goo d fait h t o engag e TSAI Ai n thir d part ynegotiation s t o resolv e RDM' s grievance s t o addres s sai d fault ypubli cpolic ya s previousl youtlined
.

RD M V
. TSAI A- Pag e 1 o f 9AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN

T I n additio n an d afte ra comprehensiv e revie wo fth e tendere d filing , additiona l subjec t matte rliteratur e review , an d th e rereadin g o fvariou s publi cdocument s applicabl e t o ou rpreviou s submissio n t o th e FA A"Chie f Council " i n th e matte rof : "RD M V TSAIA " (Docke t No
. 16-09-11) ; w e as k t o tende rth e enclose d a s additiona l relevan t comment s fo rconsideratio n therein
. Th e previou s complain t submissio n t o th e FA Aunde rTitl e 4 9 Unite d State s Cod e §4710 7 (PART16 ) ca n b e mor e full y understoo d an d place d int o appropriat e contex t whe n viewe d within : th e scop e o f pas t TSAI Aleas e policy , th e availabl e publi crecor d thereof , othe rleas e polic y arraignment s grante d i n favo ro f variou s airpor t operator s othe rtha n RDM , an d informatio n a s reasonabl yfoun d i n th e publi crecor d serv e t o for m th e basi s o f thi s amendmen t t o ou rfiling
. As w e hav e refine d ou rassessmen t o f thi s comple xsituatio n wit h furthe ranalysi s an d investigation , w e woul d tende rvi a thi s amendmen t that : ther e ar e significan t TSAI Apolic yfailure s tha t highligh t an d strengthe n ou rclai m tha t ther e ha s bee n a significan t breac h o f publi cpolic yan d a strai n t o th e give n publi cinterest
. Further , w e pra ytha t wit h you rleave , thi s effor t wil l focu s th e previou s analysi s offered , t o clearl yexhibi t (withi n Titl e 4 9 Unite d State s Cod e §4710 7 (PART16 ) an d withi n accepte d FA

Apolicy ) ho wthes e polic yissue s serv e t o mor e completel yfram e ou r complaint , an d mus t b e viewe d i n suc h a manne rt o clearl yhighligh t th e man ypubli c polic yfailure s o f th e TSAI Aa s i t attache s to : ''Ou rdefine d Airpor t Projec t a t th e "Te d Steven s Internationa l Airport ' (TSIA)
. Thes e specifi ccomment s d o defin e thes e harmfu l polic yelement s a s the yattac h t o ou ranalysi s an d eve n th e greate rpubli c interes t a t large
. W e believ e thes e expression s ca n enhanc e FA Aunderstandin g o f ho ww e hol d tha t th e damage s an d tort s w e suffe rar e emblemati co fthes e utte r failure s o f th e protecte d publi cinteres t an d prope rpubli cpolic yt o b e enforce d b yth e Chie f Council' s enforcemen t thereof , wit h a findin g o f "non-compliance"
. Th e followin g notation s o f TSAI Apubli cpolic yan d procedura l failure s strongl ybuttres s th e understandin g an d statemen t o f fac t foun d withi n ou rfilin g an d ma yassis t th e FA Ai n definin g suc h fo rth e prope radjudicatio n o fou rpreviou s submissions
. Specifically , w e wis h t o reinforc e that : i f no t fo rth e misapplicatio n o fsuc h extrem e demand s an d divergen t applicatio n o f publi cpolic yb yth e TSAIA , an d i fno t fo rsuc h extrem e applicatio n thereo f suc h publi cpolic ybein g applie d i n s o inflexibl e a manne r RD M woul d b e whole
. However , du e t o th e inconsisten t applicatio n o fTSAI Aleas e policy , RD M ha s bee n severel yharme d an d b yconnectio n thereof , s o ha s th e publi c interest
. Th e specifi cTSAI APolicyfailure s defin e that :

• Publi cservic e offering s wil l no t b e expande d o renhance d fo rth e flyin g user s o f Alask a • Competitio n wil l no t b e enhanced , failin g t o lowe rcost s t o airpor t stakeholder s • Th e publi cinteres t to : encourag e a divers e se t o fairpor t servic e stock s als o suffers
. Fo rthes e reasone d issue s an d others , thi s amendmen t i s tendere d t o focu s an d highligh t you runderstandin g o fho wth e pligh t o fRD M ha s suffered
. The yals o serv e t o represen t an d defin e thes e inappropriat e polic yaction s b yTSAIA , an d defin e specificall you rclai m where : "RD M allege s tha t TSAI Aha s violate d Titl e 4 9 Unite d State s Cod e §4710 7 (a ) Genera l Writte n Assurance s becaus e TSAI Aha s engage d i n economi cdiscriminatio n

RD M V
. TSAI A- Pag e 2 o f 9AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN T

an d ha s faile d t o compl ywit h Federa l Gran t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscriminatio n an d Federa l Gran t Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights. " 

### COMPLAIN T We hol d tha t ou rsituatio n i s emblemati cof : th e applicatio n o finconsisten t an d poorl yapplie d airpor t leas e polic yb yth e TSAI Atha t harm s th e publi cinterest s generally , an d RD M specifically
. Thi s faile d leas e polic yha s significantl yaffecte d no t jus t ou rproject , bu t als o diminishe s th e fulfillmen t o fth e need s hel d b yal l aviatio n stakeholder s o fAlask a i n FA Afundin g o fth e publi cfacility
. Th e need s o f th e man y hav e bee n subverte d fo rth e benefit s o f th e few
. Thos e fe wbein g th e lessees ' a t th e airpor t tha t hav e bee n a direc t beneficiar yo fmuc h differen t term s an d demand s b y TSAIA , tha n thos e whic h RD M mus t submi t t o b yth e TSAIA
. Th e interest s o f RD M an d eve n t o a greate rdegre e th e publi ca t larg e ar e stifle d an d refuse d b yfaile d TSAI Apolicy
. Th e recor d indicate s tha t som e gai n grea t benefi t an d favo rb yfault yan d inconsisten t TSAI Apubli cpolicy , whil e som e (lik e RDM ) suffe rdu e t o suc h widel y divergen t policy
. Thi s onl yinsure s tha t unde rsuc h faile d publi cTSAI Apolicy , whic h al l user s suffer :
• Reduce d aviatio n service s • Ar e cause d t o pa ymuc h highe raviatio n price s • Al l aviatio n use s suffe rstifle d innovatio n an d servic e offering s Wha t i s th e har m o f suc h faile d policy ? I t harm s th e publi cinteres t i n encouragin g th e variet yo f neede d publi cservice s tha t migh t otherwis e flouris h a t th e publi c facility
. I t undermine s al l opportunitie s t o partne ran d expan d service s under : measured , wel l formulated , an d mos t importantly : consisten t an d attainabl e TgAI Apolic ystandard s tha t "level s th e playin g field " fo ral l aviatio n servic e provider s includin g RDM
. Afte rreadin g th e cas e literature , applicabl e publi cstatements , othe rfiling s an d tha t o f th e TSAIA , w e hol d tha t ou rclai m an d belie f tha t publi cpolic yan d th e publi c interest s hav e bee n breached , i s valid
. Thi s i s du e t o th e inconsisten t applicatio n o f TSAI Apubli cairpor t leas e policies
. Ou rconcis e complain t t o th e "Chie f Council " an d situatio n define s suc h an d beg s you rdeterminatio n an d findin g o f "Non-Compliance"
. Th e pas t benefits , allowance s an d latitud e grante d t o othe rleas e holders ' tha t hav e foun d themselve s t o b e i n a ver ysimila rsituation s t o wha t wer e thrus t upo n RD M b y bot h circumstanc e an d contrive d TSAI Apolicy , define s th e basi s o f ou rcomplaint
. Suc h mus t als o b e viewe d i n th e ligh t that : suc h faile d polic ydoe s defil e th e publi c interest , whic h i s supposedl ysupporte d b yth e man ymillion s o f dollar s i n FAA/publi c infrastructur e tha t Alaska' s flyin g stakeholder s depen d upon . We pra ytha t b ythes e statements , w e ca n dra wyou rattention s t o th e insigh t o fou r plight , an d increas e you rrecognitio n o fou rsituation
. I t mus t b e viewe d i n th e ligh t o f ho wothe rsimilarl ysituate d partie s wer e deal t wit h b yth e TSAIA , tha t hel d a simila rfunctio n an d servic e potentia l w e wer e developin g fo rloca l aviatio n stakeholders
. I n ou ranalysis , thi s polic yissu e i s perhap s th e mos t relevan t aspec t o f ho wTSAI Aleas e polic ywa s inconsistentl yapplie d t o ou rdetrimen t an d insure s tha t "beneficia l competition " fo rth e publi cinteres t ha s bee n stifle d an d discourage d i n Alaska
. We hol d that : Th e interest s o f th e FA Ai n promotin g aviatio n i n a dependen t are a lik e Alaslca , i s a primar ypolic ytasi can d interes t issu e fo r
RD M V
. TSAI A- Pag e 3 o f9AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN

T FAAattention
. Suc h nee d i s no t bein g serve d b yallowin g "sweet-hear t deals " fo rsome , an d onl yofferin g col d demandin g polic ytha t stifle s others
. Suc h faile d TSAI Apolic yi s rif e b yexampl e i n ou rfiling
. Ou rclai m t o th e FAA mus t b e see n i n th e ligh t o fthi s faile d an d harmfu l TSAI Apolicy
. Ou rclai m serve s a s th e cru xo f suc h faile d TSAI Apubli cpolicy , whethe rb ybenign neglect , o rdirec t plan
. We d o hol d tha t suc h polic yb yth e TSAI Adoe s depar t i n th e extrem e from : accepte d FA Aan d publi cpolicy , precedent , an d procedura l norms . Thi s failur e i n ou ropinion , mus t defin e no t onl you rinterests , bu t th e interest s o fth e entir e publi cinteres t i n th e Airport
. Byextensio n w e fin d tha t ou ronl yoptio n t o correc t suc h TSAI Afaile d policy , i s t o as k

fo ryou rcomprehensiv e revie wof : FA Afunding , grants , an d othe r airpor t suppor t unde rPART-16
. B ywithholdin g pubii cmonie s (vi a a findin g o f non-compliance ) i t i s clea rtha t th e FA Aca n compe l complianc e o fthes e vita l publi cpolic yInterests
. RD M ha s bee n a t th e mercie s o f faile d TSAI A publi cpolicie s t o dat e an d pra ytha t unde rou rPart-1 6 filings , w e ca n detai l t o th e Chie f Counci l ou rclea rclaim s an d ho wth e FA Aca n comman d th e restoratio n o f reason . We woul d propose : tha t ou rharm s ar e a clea rschemati co fthes e faile d processes , policies , an d application s o f TSAI Aleas e demand s upo n RDM
. Thes e harm s clearl y represen t th e specifi cnotation s o fTSAI Apolic yfailures , an d ru n counte rto : FA A policy , precedent , an d th e publics ' interes t i n th e Airport
. W e hol d tha t ther e ar e man ywel l reasone d FA APolicystatements , whic h ca n b e ver yinstructiv e i n definin g suc h polic yfailures
. W e d o hol d tha t i t i s th e direc t obligatio n o fth e TSAI At o equitably : define , enforc e an d appl yconsisten t publi cleas e polic yt o on e an d all
. Suc h reasone d publi cpolic ymus t ensur e tha t leas e term s no t onl ydefin e limit s an d action s a s performanc e metrics , bu t als o mus t b e par t o fwel l thought-ou t publi c polic yproces s tha t insure s unifor m an d consisten t applicatio n o f standard s fo ron e an d all
. Thi s ha s no t bee n done i n ou rcase , wher e th e RD M leas e term s hav e onl y yoke d ou reffort s t o serv e th e aviatio n stakeholder s o fAlaska , who m depen d upo n th e Airpor t fo rthei rus e an d livelihoods
. As such , w e offe ran d tende rthi s amendmen t t o ou rpas t filings
. We fee l tha t i t define s ou rharm s an d tort s i n th e specifi ccontex t o f ou rsituation , an d a s a n exampl e o f th e root-caus e o ffaile d TSAI Apubli cleas e polic yupo n th e airport
. Thi s har m i s endemi co fa large rissu e tha t refine s an d highligh t fo rth e FA Aan d "Chie f Council " ho wsuc h inconsistent , ill-conceived , an d inappropriat e polic yb yth e TSAIA , ha s i n fac t worke d counte rt o th e state d publi cinterest
. We hol d tha t th e clea ran d unfettere d voic e i n ou rfiling , mus t poin t you rattentio n t o thi s faile d publi cpolic ya s th e definin g issu e thereof
. Whil e ou rcomplain t doe s defin e ou rharms , i t als o stand s a s a clea rexampl e o f ho wal l aviatio n user s suffer
. Thi s mus t serv e a s th e focu s you r recognition , investigation , an d adjudication , concernin g ou rclai m an d b yextensio n th e violatio n o fth e "writte n Gran t Assurances"
. Thes e situationa l fact s mus t focu s al l attentio n upo n suc h polic ydivergenc e an d b y recognitio n t o such , b e see n a s a n extrem e polic yfailur e b yTSAIA
. Th e potentia l fo r a n RD M projec t wil l no t b e allowe d unde rsuc h a polic yan d wil l no t mee t th e publi c demand s fo radditiona l services
. Specifically , i f TSAI Apolic yha d hel d t o th e sam e leve l o f accommodatio n an d flexibilit yoffere d others ' i n th e recen t oas t an d a s outline d i n severa l publi cdisclosures , th e followin g tw o mai n element s woul d no t hav e bee n force d upo n RDM :

RD M V
. TSAIA-Pag e 4 o

f 9AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN T 1
. Th e TSAI Awoul d neve rhav e place d suc h draconia n demand s fo rperformanc e standard s a s note d i n th e openin g negotiation s o fou rleas e terms
. A reasonabl e perso n ca n onl yconstru e that : sinc e TSAI Aha d neve rdemande d thes e difficul t term s o fother s a s publi cpolic yi n th e past , t o deman d suc h no wo f RDM , i s i n fac t a n unattainabl e demand
. 2
. Suc h TSAI Apolic ydemands , d o defin e significan t an d divergen t term s offere d t o RDM
. I n fact , a n inflectio n poin t mus t b e recognize d i n th e clea ran d unyieldin g fac t that : othe rairpor t lease-holder s hav e bee n grante d wid e latitud e fro m suc h publi cpolic ystandard s an d leas e element s b yTSAIA , ye t RD M ha s bee n hel d t o a muc h highe rstandar d o f performanc e an d demand
. Thi s uniqu e TSAI Ademan d doe s defin e th e polic yfailur e wher e RD M ha s neve rbee n offere d o f eve n allowe d th e consideratio n offere d al l others
. We believ e that : wit h th e emergenc e o f th e falterin g econom yo f200 7 t o present , a reasonabl e perso n migh t believ e tha t TSAI Apolic ywoul d loo k fo rsolution s ove r intransigence , ye t no t so . Avali d questio n tha t frame s ou rpolic yconcer n is : woul d a reasonabl e perso n believ e tha t unde rsuc h a scenario , suc h fault ydemand s t o RD M b e ignored , o reve n b e compounde d b ythes e draconia n demand s t o ultimatel y "setu p RD M fo rfailur e an d loss " o fall ? Th e har m t o RD M pales , whe n compare d t o th e losse s th e publi can d aviatio n stakeholder s tha t us e th e aviatio n asset s o fth e Stat e o fAlask a suffer , i n thi s uniqu e setting , unde rth e authorit yo fth e TSAIA
. We believ e tha t thi s issu e mus t fram e t o contex t o fou rcomplaint
. Bywa yo freference , tw o o f th e mos t impactfu l PART-1 6 case s affirme d b yth e Chie fCouncil' s office , tha t w e believ e doe s appl yt o ou rsituatio n ar e thos e tha t wer e affirme d in :

• Chesapeake, Virgini a (se e Chesapeak e Airpor t Authorit yCAA : 2001 ) • Key-West , F L (Key-Wes t Internationa l Airpor t Authority : 2008 ) Thes e tw o "affirme d case s defin e muc h o f ou rcomplain t o f faile d polic yan d serv e t o correlat e closel yt o ou rsituation , a s the yals o dea l extensivel ywit h importan t polic y aspect s o f ou rsituation :

• Monopol yeffects , b yth e disparat e treatmen t w e hav e note d a s i t relate s t o th e manne ran d typ e o f treatmen t w e suffere d an d others ' hav e benefite d from
. • Economi cDiscrimination , wherei n w e hav e define d withi n ou rclaim ; tha t loca l polic yb yth e sponso rha s favore d other s b ygrantin g latitud e o f performanc e standards , ye t hav e bee n use d a s a foi l t o hol d RD M t o grea t harm , b y demandin g i n th e formativ e star t an d later , t o a muc h highe ran d malevolen t standar d o f suc h b ypolicy , especiall ygive n th e performanc e o f other' s a s foun d unde rth e sam e issu e an d nature , an d withi n al l o f ou rdealing s wit h th e TSAIA
. • W e pos e an d clai m specifically : Tha t suc h inconsisten t polic yha s create d no t onl yhar m t o ou rproject , bu t ha s b ydefaul t grante d other s benefi t tha t ma y ris e t o th e grantin g o f right s an d benefit s ove rou rsituatio n tha t ma yb e s o extrem e i n nature , for m an d effec t s o a s t o offen d a reasonabl e perso n an d i s b yaction : a grantin g o f a n "Exclusiv e Right " o ra t leas t lea d t o a findin g o f "Economi cDiscrimination"
. As such , th e define d interes t o f th e FA Aan d peopl e i n bot h "policin g an d promotin g aviation " i n th e Unite d State s an d it s territorie s (especiall yAlaska) , mus t b e

RD M V
. TSAIA-Pag e 5 o

f 9AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN

T recognized
. We fee l tha t ou rsituatio n clearl ydefine s ho wTSAI Apubli cpolic yha s been :
• Improper , relate d t o th e agree d writte n gran t assurance s to : enhanc e th e publi cinteres t • Inconsisten t publi cpolic ypreceden t define d b yth e FAA , fo rsuc h publi c facilitie s • Poorl yforme d i n bot h natur e an d function , t o protec t th e public' s interest s • Work s directl yt o th e detrimen t o fth e state d nee d t o encourag e an d suppor t airpor t service s demande d b yth e user s o f Alask a an d th e public , a s enhance d b ypubli cfund s • Fail s th e state d purpose s o fcountles s expansio n project s funde d b yth e FA A • Fail s th e tes t b yan ymeasur e to : increas e th e service s availabl e a t th e airpor t an d mos t especiall yt o th e interes t hel d b yth e public ; t o promot e an d benefi t fo rth e competitio n o f an d t o benefi t fro m th e increas e o f servic e offering s thereto , tha t the ys o dearl ydepen d upo n fo rthei rlivelihood s an d eve n live s i n thi s uniqu e settin g an d place
. We fee l tha t thi s polic yfailur e mus t serv e a s a cor e principa l tha t define s ho wTSAI A publi cpolic yha s no t jus t faile d RDM , bu t th e large rpubli cinteres t also
. As th e cor e elemen t o f ou rsubmissions , w e woul d focu s an d highligh t fo rth e "Chie fCouncil " th e importanc e o f thi s polic yissu e an d ho wi t directl yrelate s t o ou rsituation s wit h th e TSAIA
. We strongl ybeliev e tha t ou rsituatio n highlight s no t onl you rsingula r damage d standing , bu t als o serve s a s a n emblemati csympto m o f ho wsuc h inconsisten t application s o fcapriciou s TSAI Aleas e policy
. Thi s problemati can d cavalie rapplicatio n o f suc h divergen t publi cTSAI Apolicy , fro m on e lesse e t o th e nex t (RD M i n thi s case ) onl yha s insure d tha t th e strategi cinvestmen t o f publi cfund s ha s bee n thwarte d i n ever yrespect
. Specifically , ou rprojec t t o offe ra broade rrang e o f vita l an d demande d aviatio n service s b yth e flyin g publi ci n Alask a wil l no t b e offere d unde rth e faile d standin g o fsuc h TSAI Apubli cleas e policy
. Suc h a clear-cu t failur e o f TSAI Apubli cpolic ywil l no t serv e th e publi cinteres t an d mus t serv e a s th e primar ybasi s fo rth e "Chie f Counci l o fth e FAA " t o recogniz e an d hol d a findin g o f"Non-Compliance " b yth e TSAIA ; a t th e Te d Steven s Internationa l Airport
. 

### Conclusion : Byou rsituatio n an d withi n thi s complain t amendment , w e woul d lik e t o drawyou r attentio n t o thes e publi cleas e polic yfailure s o f th e TSAIA
. Ou rsituatio n onl y emphasis ' th e fac t tha t publi cpolic yha s bee n breached , whic h doe s den ygoo d orde r t o promot e aviatio n t o Alaska' s Aviatio n Stakeholders
. W e hol d tha t ou rcomplain t clearl ynote s th e extrem e difference s betwee n ou rcontrac t terms ^ TSAI A enforcement^

an d th e polic vfailur e tha t frame s ou rsituatio n an d shoul d b e th e focal ppin t o f FA

Ainteres t i n ou rcomplaint
. Eve n so , i t clearl yi s no t th e onl yissu e w e rel y upo n t o mak e ou rcase.. . Th e dut yo fth e FA Adoe s ru n paralle l t o ou rinterest s an d w e respectfull ydeman d th e "Correction " o fsuc h offending , faile d an d breache d TSAI Apubli cinterest s an d polic yby : th e denia l o f continue d FAA/publi cfundin g unde ra findin g o f "Non-Compliance"
. Th e shutterin g o ffurthe rpubli cfundin g t o TSAI Aunti l prope ran d appropriat e correctiv e action s ar e rendere d woul d see m t o b e bot h reasonabl e an d necessary . T o resolv e thi s situation , w e fee l tha t th e FA Amus t motivat e th e offendin g agent s o f th e TSAI At o "re-think " thei rposition s o fsuc h detrimenta l polic yan d b yeffect , infringemen t o f th e publi cinterest
. The ymus t b e

RD M V
. TSAIA-Pag e 6 o

f 9AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN T
motivate d t o reconside rth e impac t thi s situatio n ha s ha d o n th e flyin g publi ci n Alaska , wher e aviatio n i s vita l t o ou rwa yo flif e an d t o ou reconomy . W e hol d tha t whe n on e view s ou rsituatio n i n th e ligh t of : pas t FAAprecedent , policy , an d state d procedura l issue , ou rsituatio n i s a clea rexampl e o ffaile d publi cpolic yb y th e TSAIA
. B ycausa l action ; ou rfiling s defin e an d highlight s th e focu s o ffaile d o r breache d "Publi cPolic yan d Interest"
. Ou rclaim s o ftort s clearl yar e emblemati co f an d precisel ydefin e direc t example s o fsuc h faile d TSAI Apubli cpolicy , whic h work s t o th e detrimen t o f th e publi cinterest..
. W e woul d tende rfo ryou rrevie wa s a n amendmen t t o ou rpreviou s filing , tha t ou rsituatio n i s emblemati co fa greate r failur e b yth e TSAI Aan d thei rfailur e t o mee t th e requirement s define d i n th e "writte n gran t assurances " the yar e signator yto
. W e woul d als o lik e t o clearl y emphasiz e ho wsuc h issue s wer e thrus t upo n u s b yth e arbitrar yan d capriciou s policie s o f th e TSAIA , th e loca l an d globa l economy , an d eve n th e turbulen t economi c condition s tha t create d th e "prefect-storm"
. Th e catalys t o fsuc h faile d polic y mandate s however , serve d t o derai l ou rproject , a s foun d b yth e direc t an d indirec t action s o f th e TSAIA
. Ou rsituatio n amount s t o "unattainable " leas e standard s an d performanc e metric s demande d b yTSAIA , bu t no t others
. W e pra yfo rth e reasone d an d insightfu l interventio n o f th e FAAi n thi s intractabl e situation , vi a th e processe s o f "PART-16 " t o righ t an d t o restor e prope rpubli cpolic yfo rall
. Thi s reques t an d thinkin g ca n b e see n i n th e citatio n below , an d a s define d b yth e clea rinten t foun d i n FA AOrde r5190.6B
. Th e followin g state s i n part : ''Thi s Orde rset s fort h policie s an d procedure s fo rth e FAAAirpor t Complianc e Program
. Th e Orde ri s no t regulator yan d i s no t controllin g wit h regar d t o airpor t sponso rconduct ; rather , i t establishe s th e policie s an d procedure s fo rFAApersonne l t o follo wi n carryin g ou t th e FAA' s responsibilitie s fo rensurin g airpor t compliance
. I t provide s basi c guidanc e fo rFAApersonne l i n interpretin g an d administerin g th e variou s continuin g commitment s airpor t owner s mak e t o th e Unite d State s a s a conditio n fo rth e gran t o ffedera l fund s o rth e conveyanc e o f federa l propert yfo rairpor t purposes . Th e Order , inte ralia , analyze s th e variou s obligation s se t fort h i n th e standar d airpor t sponso r assurances , addresse s th e applicatio n o fth e assurance s i n th e operatio n o f public-us e airports , an d facilitate s interpretatio n o fth e assurance s b yFAApersonnel. " Unde rthes e expressions , w e al l coun t upo n th e FAAt o wor k fo rcomplianc e an d orde ri n th e us e an d developmen t o fou rpublicl yfunde d aviatio n assets
. W e understan d tha t th e FAAcanno t "command " complianc e o fa sponsor . The yca n however , b yus e o f th e clea rstandard s o f5190.6 B an d othe rsuc h polic yreferences , encourag e th e sponso rt o abid e b yno t jus t th e lette ro fsuch , bu t als o t o sho w deferenc e t o th e spiri t o f suc h polic ycomplianc e t o furthe rth e publi cinterest
. Th e FA Aclearl ydoe s no t determin e "non-compliance " lightl yo rb ydefault , bu t i t mus t b e invoke d i n thi s cas e t o protec t th e publi cinteres t whe n al l els e ha s failed
. Whe n suc h polic yfailure s ar e foun d an d recognized , th e FA Ama yb e th e las t rationa l arbite rfo r a reasone d remedy
. W e pra ytha t th e FA Awill , b ydefinin g correctiv e actio n an d inducin g correction s t o TSAI Apolicy , an d b yprope rfundin g restriction s unde rth e law ; induc e th e TSAI At o remed ythei rfaile d publi cpolicie s tha t w e suffe runde ran d tha t ru n counte rt o th e publi cinterest
.

RD M V
. TSAI A- Pag e 7 o

f9AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN T
W e fin d i t necessar yt o mak e thi s amende d filin g under : Titl e 4 9 Unite d State s Cod e §4710 7 o r"PAR T16 " agains t TSAIA , t o highligh t i n clea rdetai l tha t ou rfilin g i s bu t a sympto m o f th e greate rissu e o ffaile d TSAI Apubli cleas e polic yan d th e publi c interes t hel d b yal l aviatio n stakeholders
. W e woul d as k fo rth e leav e o fth e "Chie f Council " t o amen d ou rfilin g t o includ e thes e comment s fo ryou rconsideration , defining : Ho wth e TSAI Apubli cleas e polic yfailure s hav e no t onl yharme d ou r situation , bu t als o tha t o f th e entir e flyin g publi ca t th e airpor t an d eve n t o som e extent , th e econom yo f Alask a give n th e extensiv e relianc e ou rare a ha s o n aviation
. Thes e failure s i n th e applicatio n o fsuc h publi cleas e policie s an d decision s ar e indicativ e o f "inconsisten t an d unattainabl e policies " bot h o fwhic h FAApolicy , pas t preceden t an d polic yenforcemen t hav e spoke n to , o n man yoccasions
. A s a resul t o f thes e TSAI Apolic yfailure s an d breaches ; grav e har m ha s bee n don e t o no t onl you r busines s relations , bu t als o i n th e grande rscheme s t o th e publi cinterest s o fal l aviatio n user s o f th e publi cfacility , tha t s o man ydepen d upo n i n thi s uniqu e State
. W e tende rtha t ou rfilin g unde r"PAR T16 " indicate s primar yfailur e in : ho w"publi c polic ywa s breached " an d ho wth e TSAI Aeithe rviolate d b ystandard , polic yo r omission ; th e demand s o f settle d FA Apubli cpolic ystandard s a t thi s significan t publi cfacilit ys o man ydepen d upo n fo rthei rlive s an d livelihoods
. A s w e understan d it : Th e tw o primar yarea s o finteres t foun d withi n th e missio n o f th e FA Aa s define d b ystatute , polic yan d publi cexpectatio n includes : Th e publi cinteres t to : "Promot e Aviation " an d t o "Regulat e Aviation " fairl y fo rall..
. W e strongl ybeliev e tha t th e tes t necessar yfo ra findin g o fNON-COMPLIANC E ha s bee n met , a t th e Te d Steven s Internationa l Airport
. Th e harm s an d tort s describe d withi n ou rpas t filing s an d herein , serv e t o highligh t thi s failur e o fpubli cpolicy
. I t als o define s th e greate rhar m t o th e recognize d "Publi cInterests " a t th e Airpor t an d a s such : i t i s vita l tha t tin e FAA(vi a a findin g o f"Non-Compliance" ) demand , induce , an d asses s suc h correctiv e action s a s necessar yo fth e TSAIA
. W e fee l tha t th e proces s o f th e FAAunde rPART-1 6 wil l mak e u s whol e an d mor e importantl yan d b y attachment : protec t an d secur e th e publi cinterest s i n thi s vita l an d importan t publicl yfunde d airpor t facilit yuse d b ys o many . Thes e issue s serv e a s th e cor e claim s o fou r"PAR T16 " filing
. The vdeman d prope r adjudicatio n b yth e FAAan d ar e clearl yfoun d i n man ypas t ruling s b yth e FA AChie f Council
. Ou rsituatio n define s a n utte ran d complet e failur e o fpubli cleas e polic yb yth e TSAIA , an d thi s failur e mus t b e correcte d b ya rulin g o f"non-comoliance " unde r Part-16o f th e ACT
. Respectfull ysubmitted ,

Shau n Debenha m Member , Debenha m Properties , LL C Managin g Membe ro f RDM , LL C 296 0 C Street , Suit e 20 2
RD M V
. TSAI A- Pag e 8 o

f9AMENDMEN TT O COMPLAIN T

Anchorage , A K9950 3 W : (907 ) 562-933 0 F : (907 ) 562-933 1 E : shaundebenham(a)alaska.ne t


## Certifie dDelivery
. Christin e E
. Klein , AA E Deputy Commissione r

for Aviatio nan dActin g Airport Directo r Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airport

RD M V
. TSAI A- Pag e 9 o f 9