< E li J

S < t - U l E X Q
. u . o O t o o > ° Z - < i n < > u ^ d > a 3 u ) S a z < c C

M < ^ U l e 0 c < U J 1 3 OC Z O o o o 5 u ! X X < ^ o o . 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 24 2 5 2 6 

# ffi E B W

J A N 1 • UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C RDM , LLC , Complainant , V . TE D STEVEN S ANCHORAG E INTERNATIONA L AIRPORT ,

Respondent
. Docke t No . 16-09-1 4 REBUTTA L ^

'
. 3 Responden t

State o f Alaska , Departmen t

o f Transportatio n an dPiiUli c Facilities , ("AlaskaDOT&PF" ) in it s capacit y a s sponso r an doperato r

o f th e Te d Steven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airport , ("ANC" ) hereb y rebut s Complainan t RDM , LLC' s ("RDM" ) Repl y t o TSAI A Answe r ("Reply")
. I

n th e accompanyin g Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismiss , th e Alask aDOT&P Ffurther support s it s reques t fo r dismissa l wit

h prejudice , an dhereb y incorporate s thos e argument s als o int o thi s Rebuttal
. Th e dispositiv e issue s i n thi s matte r ar e a s follows : A . RD M ha s n o standin g unde r Part 1 6 becaus e a s RD M ha s no t demonstratedthat

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D are , o r

propose dt o be , an aeronauti c use r

o r provide r o f aeronauti c services
. RD M i s area l estat e developer , an dAGLA D propose dt o b e area l estat e developer
. B . RD M ha s n o standin g a s it wa s no t "directl y an dsubstantiall y affected " b y th e allege daction s o f

th e Alask aDOT&P Fwith respec t t o AGLA D Postmark , LL C ("AGLAD") . C . Contrac t

term s no t

prohibite db y la

w o r gran t assurances , bu t

agree dt o b y AGLA D a s amatte r

o f contract , ar e no t

prope r subject s fo

r revie w unde r Part 16 . D . RD M ha s no t

carrie dit s burde n o f

proo f that AGLA D wa s similarl y situate dt o FedE x UP S o r CargoPort , whic h it

wa s not . REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

lU 5 o

- I > U , 11 1 l U b 2 < f - u c X 2 - 5 S i

< i n < M < U J 

## S i 

# < i O E < l

U ? ; 3 < = Z O O O O 5 C LI I < ^ O a . % z ^ < H I S t ( 5 O l U u . o 2

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 E . RD M ha s no t carrie dit s burde n o f

proo f tha t th e term s an dtreatmen t AGLA D receive dfro mth e Alask aDOT&P Fwer e no t reasonabl y justified , whic h the y were . F . Th e specifi c statemen t i n RDM' s Repl y d o no t

provid e materia l support fo r it s allegations
. I t may fairl y b e note dher e that both RDM' s Complain t

an dRepl y ar e replet e with assertion s unsupporte db y an y evidenc e whatsoever , an dtha t RD M quit e consistentl y fail s t o mee t

th e well-documente dfact s presente db y Alask aDOT&PF . A . RD M ha s n o standin g unde r Par t 1 6 becaus e RD M ha s no t demonstrate d tha t eithe r RD M o r AGLA D are , o r

propose dt o be , a n aeronauti c use r o r provide r o f aeronauti c services
. RDM' s Repl y brough t

int o clear

focu s an issu e no t

readil y apparen t

from it s origina l complaint , bu t whic h may b e fully dispositiv e o f thi s matter : Th e issue s in thi s cas e al l relat e t o rea l estat e developmen t b y area l estat e developer , whic h i s arguabl y no t

aeronauti c us e subjec t

t o Part 1 6 at all
. In it s Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismiss , Alask aDOT&P F discusse s at

som e length DeScios e v . Cit y o f Lon g Beach , FA A Docke t No . 16-99-1 2 (Decembe r

13 , 2001 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) (a s wel l a s th e February 20 , 2001 , Director' s Determination) , an dargue s tha t RD M an dAGLA D ar e an dwer e rea l estat e developers , no t

aeronauti c user s entitle dt o protectio n unde r Part 16. ' Alask aDOT&P F incorporate s b y referenc e her e th e argument s o f it s Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismiss
. Havin g incorporate dthos e arguments , Alask aDOT&P Fwil l no t restat e

' I t i s importan t

t o not e that

Alask aDOT&P Fneve r

distinguishe dbetwee n AGLAD , CargoPort

o r any othe r lesse e o r leas e applican t

base do n it

bein g perceive dt o b e area l estat e develope r rathe r than apropose daeronautica l user . Alask aDOT&P F endeavors , t o an dbelieve s tha t it does , trea t

al l applicant s an dtenant s fairl y and , t o th e exten t similarl y situated , consistentl y i n complianc e with 4 9 U.S.C . §47107(a ) an dth e Sponso r Gran t Assurances—excep t

a s justifie db y relevan t

difference s betwee n lessees , projects , businesses , timeframes , circumstances , etc . I t wa s onl y RDM' s descriptio n o f itsel f an dth e AGLA D development , togethe r with th e DeSciose case , that suggeste dth e assurance s may not , strictl y speaking , apply
. In an y event , Alask aDOT&P Fbelieve s it treate dAGLA D in complet e complianc e with th e gran t assurance s whethe r

the y appl y o r not , and , a s mor e fully argue dbelow , RDM' s allegation s o f disparat e treatmen t

ar e eithe r unfounded , o r

th e difference s wer e fully justifie db y dis-similar situations
. REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< a l U S o

- I >
U . Ul
U J P S < I - l U aX Q . u . U l O °U J o S

0 OT < » ° Z - < i n < i " ^ cj > C C 3 OT <

o 0 3 Z < C

M o 3
. s < . ^ l u £ H o 1 3 O C

_< C O o U J

. z I O X 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 the mher e in full , bu t wil l not e th e fact s tha t

indicat e RD M is , an dAGLA D propose dt o be , area l estat e develope r rathe r tha n an aeronauti c users : 1 . Th e banne r

acros s th e botto mo f

th e stationery o f

RDM' s managin g member , Debenha mProperties , LLC , reads : " ^ rea l estat e developmen t company. " Se e Exhibi t C t o RD M Repl y (als o provide da s ANC-AGLAD-0198-0199 ) (emphasi s added ) 2 . "RDM' s managemen t company , Debenha mProperties , LL C own s ove r $40 M o f investmen t

rea l estat e i n Alaska , Utah an dNevada
. Debenha mPropertie s specialize s i n development , acquisition s an dpropert y managemen t o f industria l space. " RD M Repl y a

t 2 (numbere dparagrap h 5 ) (emphasi s added) ; 3 . Descriptio n o f

""th e developmen t

process, " referrin g t o th e "post-constructio n phase " a s "managemen t

o f th e project " (a s oppose dt o operatio n o f a n aeronautica l servic e business ) an dreferrin g t o pre-construction a s "effort s t o court an dsig n tenants. " RD M Repl y a t 9-1 0 (numbere dparagrap h 6 ) (emphasi s added) ; 4 . Assertio n that

"th e development " existed , eve n thoug h i t remaine donl y a propose dan dplanne didea , descriptio n o f ''ho w development s occur, " an d discussio n whethe r

"tenant s shoul dcom e t o th e lan dleas e signin g wit h thei r development s pre-leased, " an dth e "tim e neede dt o court an dnegotiat e with prospectiv e tenants. " RD M Repl y at 1 0 (numbere dparagrap h 9 ) (emphasi s added) ; 5
. Referenc e t o Pegasu s Aircraf t Maintenanc e a s " amajo r ancho r tenan t t o AGLAD' s development. " RD M Repl y a t 1 1 (numbere dparagrap h 9-10 ) (emphasi s added) ; Referenc e t o Cathay Pacifi c Airway s Limite da s " amajo r ancho r tenan t t o AGLAD' s development. " RD M Repl y a t 1 2 (numbere dparagrap h 9-8 ) (emphasi s added) ; Compariso n o f

it s "prospectiv e project " t o "on i n whic h adevelope r control s prim e rea l estate, " effectivel y equatin g AGLA D t o " adeveloper " bu t withou t contro l o f th e property unti l it

signe dth e lease
. RD M Repl y at 2 0 (numbere d paragrap h 19-3. J (emphasi s added)) ; Referenc e t o fac t

that "Long-ter mfinancing i s alway s th e hardes t financing t o secur e fo r adevelopment. " RD M Repl y a t 2 2 (numbere dparagrap h 19-7.e ) (emphasi s added ) "I f developer s ar e goin g t o inves t million s o f

dollar s int o project s a

t TSAI A the y nee dt o kno w that

TSAI A i s no t

goin g t o willfull y price-undercu t them. " RD M Repl y a t 2 5 (numbere dparagrap h 19- 1 Lb ) (emphasi s added)
. 6 . 7
.

8 .

REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E l U I - 5 " 5 2 l u H l U o E X £ Q . U . Z ly o < u S w

. . < l O !i j = ^ < ^ 3 C O < o Z 4 C M f C 3
. . E < U J 5 c z O O O " - 3 : X 1

2 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 T o th e exten t neithe r RD M no r

AGLA D wer e aeronautica l user s protecte d b y th e gran t

assurances , thi s matte r

i s no t subjec t t o Part 1 6 jurisdiction
. B . RD M ha s n o standin g a s i t wa s no t "directl y an dsubstantiall y affected " b y th e allege daction s o f

th e Stat e o f

Alask awit h respec t

t o AGLAD . Havin g incorporate db y referenc e her e th e argument s o f it s Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismiss , Alask aDOT&P Fwil l no t restat e th e argumen t that RD M ha s n o standin g a s i t wa s no t "directl y an dsubstantiall y affected " b y th e allege daction s o f

th e Stat e o f

Alask awith respec t

t o AGLAD . Suffic e i t t o stat e her e tha t

th e RDM' s onl y direc t

dealing s with Alask a DOT&P Fwer e no t

o n behal f

o f AGLA D a s aholde r

o f an AN C lease , bu t

o n behal f o f eithe r Debenha mProperties , LL C o r RD M a s aprospectiv e purchase r o f Alask aGloba l Logistic s Airpark

Development , Inc' s majority interes t i n AGLAD . Thus , th e State o f Alask adeal t

directl y with Debenha mo r RD M onl y a s potentia l purchaser s o f a controllin g interes t

in an airport

tenant . Ye t

RD M make s n o allegatio n tha t it hadright s unde r law o r th e gran t assurance s i n that

capacity , an dn o allegatio n tha t an y othe r similarl y situate dprospectiv e purchase r o f acontrollin g interes t

i n an airport

tenan t receive dmor e favorabl e treatmen t fromAlask aDOT&PF . Al l o f RDM' s allegation s o f

wrongfu l conduc t

g o t o th e leas e term s an d treatmen t o f AGLAD . Althoug h term s an ddecision s o f Alask aDOT&P Fma

y hav e affecte dAGLAD , an y impac t felt b y RD M wa s necessaril y secondary an dindirect , dependin g o n whateve r

direc t effec t AGLA D experienced
. RD M canno t disput e that truth
. N o actio n b y th e Alask aDOT&P Ftha t i s subjec t t o Part 1 6 revie w ha dan y direc t an dsubstantia l effec t

o n RDM . RD M ha s n o standing
. C . Contrac t

term s no t

prohibite db y la w o r

gran t assurances , bu t

agree dt o b y AGLA D a s amatte r

o f contract , ar e no t

prope r subject s fo r

revie w unde r Par t 16 . Havin g incorporate db y referenc e her e th e argument s o f it s Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismiss , Alask aDOT&P Fwil l no t restat e th e argumen t that Part 1 6 revie w i s no t

appropriat e fo

r term s an dcondition s no t expressl y contrary t o 4 9 U.S.C . §4710 1 an dth e Sponso r Gran t Assurances , an dt o whic h AGLA D agree db y REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 4 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U I

- J > 2 U . U < O Z E I - 5 " 5 0 U J t - l U o E I S Q
. u . z U J o < Q u j u r< i n 3 U ) C O

^ U J £ E < U I ac z 5 0 0 

### ? 5 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 13 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 • •
contract . Suffic e i t

t o sa y her e tha t

i f an aeronauti c user' s leas e termo r treatmen t wer e allege dt o hav e directl y contravene d4 9 U.S.C . §47107(a ) o r agran t assuranc e withou t referenc e t o an y ater mo r decisio n applie dt o an y othe r tenant , the n perhap s it

woul db e subjec t t o Part 1 6 review—eve n i f

th e complainan t

ha dagree dt o it
. Bu t

wher e th e onl y issu e i s disparat e treatmen t betwee n tenants , the n eve n for aeronauti c users , "agreein g t o difference s i n rights , restrictions , responsibilitie s an drent s i n agreement s amon g existin g FBO s necessaril y support s th e conclusio n tha t th e partie s ar e no t

similarl y situate dfo

r purpose s o f

finding unjus t

economi c discrimination. " 4 1 North 7 3 West , In c V . Count y o f Westchester , FA A Docke t 16-07-13 , (Septembe r

18 , 2009 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , pp . 28 ) (emphasi s added)
. D . RD M ha s no t

carrie dit s burde n o f

proo f tha t AGLA D wa s similarl y situate dt o FedE x UP S o r CargoPort , whic h i t

wa s not . Differin g treatmen t

o f differen t tenant s ove r

tim e i s no t

i n an do f

itsel f improper : [N] o Federa l obligatio n require s asponso r t o forg o improve d busines s practice s o r

efficien t allocatio n o f

airport propert y i n orde r t o avoi ddifferin g term s an dcondition s amon g user s o f th e airport
. Th e airport

sponso r can pursu e agreement s that mor e nearl y serv e th e changin g interest s o f th e publi c wit

h th e mor e recen t

leaseholders
. MaximUnited , LL C v . Boar do f County Com

m'rs , FA A Docke t

No . 16-01-1 0 (Apri l 14 , 2003 ) (Director' s Determination , p . 22 ) (citin g Wilson Ai r Cente r v . Memphi s an d Shelb y County Airpor t

Authority , FA A Docke t No . 16-99-1 0 (Augus t

30 , 2001)(Fina l Decisio n an dOrder) ; see , als o Ashevill e Jet , Inc . v . Ashevill e Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t 16-08-0 2 (Octobe r

1 , 2009 ) (Director' s Determination ) (identica l ton e an dpostur e no t require dtowar dal l competitor s with differen t record s an dhistor y with sponso r (citin g Ric k

Aviatio n v . Peninsul aAirpor t Comm'n , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-1 8 (May 7 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determinatio n a t 16)) ; gran t

assuranc e doe s no t requir e identica l leas e rate s an dterm s t o lease s negotiate da t different point s in tim e (citin g Aerodynamic s o f Reading , Inc . v . Readin g Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-0 3 (Jul y 23 , 2001 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decision)) ; Bist i Aviation , Inc . v . REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 5 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E l U
U.U J t O Z E I - 5 • "
" J b S H U J o E X £ a . u . z w o < °u i u §

O J & o t U ) „ 3 o > S w » ° U J ^ J ^ 3 W ) u > Z < C M U J J — > rf f ^ 5 u j a E < U l 3 E Z o o o u l X X 

# s r

e n 2

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 • Cit y o f Farmington , FA A Docke t 16-07-0 1 (Decembe r

4 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determinatio n a

t 21 ) ("Federa l gran t

obligation s d o no t

requir e Alask aDOT&P Ft o us e antiquate dleasin g practice s jus t t o ensur e tha t

aprospectiv e tenan t

toda y get s th e sam e treatmen t anothe r tenan t go t i n th e past." ) A s note dat

pag e 33 , paragraph s 14. dan d.e , o f RDM' s Reply , th e FA A ha s hel d I n orde r

fo r th e Directo r

t o sustai n an allegatio n o f unjus t economi c discrimination , th e recor dmus t sho w th e element s o f unjus t economi c discriminatio n unde r gran t assuranc e 22 . I n aPart 1 6 proceeding , th e Complainan t ha s th e burde n o f proo f t o establis h th e element s o f unjus t discrimination
. ... , th e recor dmus t

sho w tha t

anothe r part y similarl y situate dt o th e Complainan t

receive dpreferentia l treatmen t denie dt o th e Complainan t

i n similar

circumstances
. ...Th e FA A ha s acknowledge dthat

severa l factor s can distinguis h partie s tha t asponso r

can justl y trea t

differently , withou t

violatin g it s Federa l obligations
. Suc h factor s ma y be : perio do f

lease , busines s plan proposed ; locatio n o f facilities , leve l o f

servic e an damenities , scop e o f services , investment , marke t conditions , an dreasonabl e action s b y th e sponso r t o promot e an dprotec t

it s ability t o continu e t o serv e th e interest s o f th e publi c i n civi l aviation , includin g th e enlistmen t o f pruden t busines s practice s tha t

ma y chang e ove r

time
. Grayso n v . DeKal b County , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-13 , (February 1 , 2006 ) (Director' s Determination) ; see , als o JetAway Aviation , Inc . v . Montros e County , (Jul y 2 , 2009 ) (Director' s Determinatio n a t 46) . RD M allege s that

AGLA D wa s similarl y situate dwit h FedEx , UP S an d Alask aCargoPort . Presentin g effectivel y n o legitimat e evidenc e whatsoever , RD M merel y cite s generall y similar proximit y an d"similar

developmen t

pattern s o f developin g both hardstand s fo r aircraf t servicin g an dbuildin g spac e fo r industria l use " Reply , pag e 14 , paragrap h 14 . See , also
. Reply , pag e 15 , paragraph s 17-1 8 ("Al l fou r development s rel y extensivel y o n aircraf t parkin g hardstan d[sic ] t o servic e aircraft
. Additionally, , al l fou

r developments rel y extensivel y o n warehousin g facilitie s t o servic e good s an dservices; " an d"Al l fou r development s involv e constructin g an dusin g REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 6 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U J

I - £ * ^ 2 U J
< • - o o . u . z a o < Ou i u h i 5

—" > m 3 ffi §

- < i n 3 C O « > Z < C

M U J
_ l C-
. 3 < fe E < U J 3 E Z
^ < e n o 1

2 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 aircraf

t parkin g position s an dabuildin g facilit y wher e office , warehous e an dcarg o transfer/sortin g can occur.") . RDM' s "point " i s onl y that "b y an dlarge , al l fou

r development s ar e similar i n siz e an duse. " Reply , pag e 15 , paragrap h 18 . Presentin g n o othe r

evidenc e o f

similarity , RD M respond s t o Alask a DOT&PF' s catalo g o f

difference s in it s Answe r a t Exhibi t A , paragrap h 1 8 b y sayin g "[a]l l o f [thos e differences ] may o r ma y no t b e tru e bu t

it doe s no t excus e TSAI A from fulfillin g thei r

obligation s t o Titl e 4 9 Unite dState s Cod e §47107(a ) Genera l Writte n Assurances. " Reply , pag e 15 , paragrap h 18.A.1- 9 an dpag e 1 6 paragrap h 18.B.1-8 . I t i s certainl y tru e that

difference s betwee n tenant s an dproject s an dcircumstance s d o no t excus e an airport

fromcomplianc e with th e la w o r gran t assurances , bu t

a s many , man y Part 1 6 decision s demonstrate , th e degre e whic h tenant s an dthei r project s are o r

ar e no t similarl y situate ddetermine s o f th e degre e t o whic h th e la w an dgran t assurance s requir e similar

term s o r treatment . B y failin g t o disput e th e difference s se t ou t b y Alask aDOT&PF , RD M effectivel y concede s tha t

AGLA D wa s not , i n fact , similarl y situate dt o any o f FedEx , UP S o r CargoPort . Lookin g onl y a t constructio n an dphysica l functionality , bu t no t a t al l o n busines s model , RD M completel y fail s t o recogniz e ho w completel y dis-similar AGLAD , a s area l estat e develope r proposin g t o develo p amulti-tenan t leas e facilit

y i n 2005 , wa s fro mFedE x an dUP S a s Signatory Ai r Carrier s constructin g facilitie s fo r thei r ow n us e t o mee t

thei r ow n need s mor e than 1 5 year s before
. Th e utte r dissimilarit y betwee n AGLAD , FedE x an dUP S completel y negate s al l o f RDM' s comparison s betwee n thos e "developments. "

Althoug h CargoPort' s situatio n a s area l estat e develope r fo r multi-tenan t use , wa s somewha t

mor e comparabl e t o AGLAD' s than FedE x o r UPS , th e difference s note dat Alask aDOT&PF' s Answe r a t Exhibi t A , paragrap h 18.B , an dno t reflite db y RDM , preclud e afinding that AGLA D an dCargoPort

wer e similarl y situated , either
. A s note di n Roadhous e Aviation , LL C v . Cit y o f Tulsa , FA A Docke t

No . 16-05-0 8 (Jun e 26 , 2007 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) a t pag e 20 , footnot e 3 , "tw o operator s ma y no t b e considere dessentiall y similar eve n thoug h the y offe

r th e sam e servic e t o th e public. " REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 7 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U l 5 a J > U . U J
u l h S < H - U l < • - Q , u . U J o o m o C M

_t « _ 3 : 3 < » S o 5 > < » S Z . . < U

) E 3 e n S m z < C M
< X U J S I E f a . . o E < U l X 3 E Z o o o o Z U L X X < ^ o a $ z ^ < U
. o 2

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 • {ciiin g Aerodynamics o f

Reading , Inc . v . Readin g Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-00-03,Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r (Jul y 23 , 2001 ) an dAdventur e Aviatio n v . Cit y o f La s Cruces , FA A Docke t No . 16-01-14 , (Augus t

7 , 2002 ) (Director' s Determination)
. Th e followin g ar e th e difference s betwee n CargoPor t an dAGLA D a s note di n Alask a DOT&PF' s Answe r

a t Exhibi t A , paragrap h 18.B : 1 . CargoPort' s origina l member s include dLynx s Holdings , LLC , an experience ddevelope r

an doperato r

o f ai r carg o facilities , an dMAPC O Alask aPetroleum , Inc . ("MAPCO") , whic h refine dan dsol dlarg e volume s o f

je t fue l t o airline s at

ANC—neithe r

AGLA D no r

an y o f it s member s ha s neve r

develope dan ai r

carg o facilit

y o r don e any othe r airport business ; 2 . CargoPort' s member , MAPCO , wa s amid-majo r oi l compan y wit

h astak e i n je t fiiel sale s a

t ANC , astron g financial trac k recor dan dread y acces s t o bot h majo r

deb t an dequity market s fo

r financing an dprovide dit s corporat e guarante e o f

th e CargoPort

project—AGLAD' s member s ha d n o stak e at

AN C othe r

than AGLAD , n o financial trac k recor dshare dwith Alask aDOT&PF , n o read y acces s t o financial markets ; RD M decline da n invitatio n t o guarante e th e AGLA D project ; 3 . Despit e substantiall y greate r capacity t o finance alarge-scal e development , an ddespite—o r perhap s becaus e of—it s members ' respective ai r

carg o developmen t

an dairport

busines s experience , CargoPort

initiall y bega n it s developmen t mor e conservativel y o n roughl y 23. 9 acres—AGLAD , despit e it s limite dacces s t o financing an ddespite — o r perhap s becaus e of—it s complet e lac k o f ai r carg o developmen t

an d airport busines s experience , too k ahighl y aggressiv e developmen t postur e b y leasin g an dcommittin g t o develo p 40. 5 acre s fro mth e start ; 4 . Whe n th e CargoPort

developmen t

began in 1997 , AN C wa s beginnin g t o ru n lo w o n easy-to-develo p land , an dther e ha dbee n multipl e application s fo r th e subjec t

parcel ; CargoPort

obtaine dit s leas e b y competitiv e seale d bi dwit h n o ability t o negotiate term s o f th e lan dleas e agreemen t that require dup-fron t

paymen t o f ayear' s ren t

an damandatory performanc e bon di n th e amoun t

o f $1 0 million—b y th e tim e AGLA D signe dit s lease , th e variou s area s o f

undevelope dlan dat

AN C al l pose dvaryin g challenges , makin g preferre dlan dal l tha t muc h mor e scarce ; ye t

AGLA D applie di n 200 2 fo

r virtuall y al l o f

th e remainin g lan dsuitabl e fo r development , ultimatel y leasin g substantiall y al l o f th e remainin g strategically-locate dlan do n th e eas t sid e o f th e north-south runway i n 200 5 unde r

term s i t negotiate dwith Alask aDOT&P Fwithou t an y proo f
REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 8 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E Ul Z o o C M U J 5 S ^ t -i> 5 U . Ul < U

J O S K 3 E O Q Z U l

. _L k m^ U l
_ l z t : I " > 

### fits* ^ w o fc E X g 5 0 . u . z u : 

### g i « s

(/ > ( O < C M 

### : ? U l £ 0
. . < U l E Z o o X X o o . 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 5
.

7
. o f financial responsibility , an dsubstituting astipulate dtimelin e for bein g o n trac k fo r an dsecurin g financing fo r performanc e bond ; Whe n th e CargoPort

developmen t

began i n 1997 , AN C hadbecom e an th e internationa l air

freighte r hu b fo r onl y FedE x an dUPS , an dvery littl e othe r carg o trans-loading , se e Marc h 1 , 200 0 Lette r fromKe n Lythgo e [ANC-CargoPort-0179-0180]—b y th e tim e AGLA D signe dit s lease , AN C wa s th e thir dlarges t airport i n th e worl dfo

r carg o tonnag e accordin g t o dat afromth e Airport s Counci l International , with a Northwes t

Ai r Carg o hu b operatin g a

t CargoPort

an dDH L competin g strongl y wit

h FedE x (th e Northwes t

Ai r Carg o hu b ha s mor e recentl y bee n eliminate dsinc e th e merge r with Delt aAi r

Lines , an dDH L ha s dramaticall y reduce dit s activity i n U.S . markets) ; Whe n th e CargoPort

developmen t

began i n 1997 , th e Alask aDepartmen t o f Transportatio n an dPubli c Facilitie s ("DOT&PF" ) ha dno t update dit s relevan t airport regulation s sinc e 1979—b y th e tim e AGLA D signe dit s leas e in 2005 , leasin g at

AN C wa s subjec t

t o DOT&PF' s Internationa l Airport Regulations , 1 7 AA C 42 , adopte din 2001 ; Whe n th e CargoPort

developmen t

began in 1997 , foreig n ai r carg o carrier s wer e significantl y limite di n carg o transfe r right s a t AN C b y principle s o f

cabotage—^by th e tim e AGLA D signe dit s leas e i n 2005 , Sectio n 80 8 o f

Publi c La w No : 108-176 , Visio n 100-Century o f Aviatio n Reauthorizatio n Act , signe dint o law Decembe r 12 , 2003 , ha denacte d4 9 U.S.C . 41703(e) , se e [ANC-0012] , allowin g foreig n ai r carrier s unprecedente dcarg o transfe r right s a t ANC , increasin g both th e deman d for ai r carg o service s a

t AN C an dth e deman dfor ai r carg o developmen t lan dat ANC . 8 . Whe n th e CargoPort

developmen t

began i n 1997 , Alask aDOT&P Fha d no t ye t begu n it s termina l redevelopment progra man dth e Alask a Internationa l Airport s Syste mha doutstandin g bon ddeb t in aprincipa l amoun t o f les s than $5 0 million
. B y th e tim e AGLA D signe dit s leas e in 2005 , th e Alask aInternationa l Airport s Syste mwa s servicin g bonde d indebtednes s o f

mor e than $40 0 million , an dwa s preparin g aFebruary 200 6 bon dissu e t o ad d$239,735,00 0 i n ne w debt , greatl y constrainin g an y availability o f

airport revenu e fo

r support o f tenan t developmen t RDM' s repl y t o al l o f

thos e distinction s wa s tha t the y "ma y o r

may no t b e true, " followe db y awholl y unsupporte dan dunexplaine dassertio n tha t the y di dno t

matter . Bu t "Par t 1 6 preceden t

support s th e conclusio n that leas e terms , negotiations , agreement s an dtimin g o f agreement s matte r

whe n determinin g similarl y situate d competitors. " 4 1 Nort h 7 3 West , In c v . County o f

Westchester , FA A Docke t 16-07-13 , REBUTTA L RDM , LL C v . AN C Pag e 9 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l

U.U I ^ O S E k

- S " " ^ O U l I

- U l 5 < • - o a . u . z U l o < Q U J u I T u . O C M t Z tf ) .. . 3 ffi § U ) * °

- < i n 3 c/ > l o Z < C M U l
_ l j ^ I U l a H 5 3 • • C < U l 5 E Z o o o u . X X 

# i V O 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 (Septembe r

18 , 2009 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , p . 28) . RD M ha s faile dt o satisf y it s burde n o f proo f tha t AGLA D wa s similarl y situate dwith CargoPort . Indeed , RD M canno t satisf y that burde n becaus e th e distinguishin g factor s ar e to o man y an dto o distinct
. E . RD M ha s no t

carrie dit s burde n o f

proo f tha t th e term s an dtreatmen t AGLA D receive dfro mth e Alask aDOT&P Fwer e no t reasonabl y justified , whic h the y were . I n th e first

seve n page s o f

it s Answer , Alask aDOT&P Fexplaine dwh y i t negotiate dfinancing deadlines—^t o whic h AGLA D di dno t

objec t an dindicate dit

woul d meet—int o th e AGLA D lease
. In th e fall o f 2005 , AGLA D ha dno t

demonstrate dtha t

i t ha dth e financial ability t o carry ou t it s project , [ANC-AGLAD-0157 ] unlik e CargoPort , whic h ha dbeen require dt o pos t a$1 0 millio n bon do r

guarantee . (Bon drequiremen t for 100 % o f costs , ADA-30816 , Articl e I X [ANC-CargoPort-0014] ; Statemen t o f $1 0 millio n minimu mamount , ADA-30816 , Articl e X. D [ANC-CargoPort-0016] , lette r acknowledgin g receip t

[ANC-CargoPort-0111] . Unde r stat e regulations , a

t 1 7 AA C 42.215(b)(5 ) an d42.240(b) , AN C staf f wa s require dt o addres s financial responsibilit y o f AGLA D t o ensur e timel y completio n o f

improvements
. AGLAD , di ddisclos e whateve r financial backin g RD M ha dcommitte dt o th e project
. Alask aDOT&P Fha dth e optio n o f denyin g th e leas e for failur e t o demonstrat e financial responsibilit y sufficien t t o carry ou t

th e project , deferrin g aleas e unti l AGLA D coul dpu t th e financing together , whic h woul dhav e require dane w competitiv e publi c notice , o r workin g ou t

an alternative
. Wit

h AGLA D oppose dt o eithe r

o f th e first tw o option s bu t

confiden t it coul dge t th e financing togethe r i n th e relativ e near

term , AGLA D propose da"conditiona l lease. " Le e Nun n lette r t o Richar dWilson , Octobe r 24 , 200 5 [ANC-AGLAD-015 7 at 0160] . Thu s th e concep t o f afinancing deadlin e o n whic h th e leas e wa s contingen t actuall y originate d wit h AGLAD . I t

wa s no t a s a"take-it-or-leav e it " provision , a s allege db y RDM , bu t a negotiate dwork-aroun dt o whic h AGLA D mad e n o objection
. Evidenc e o f othe r negotiate dprovision s i s containe di n anot e t o file a t [ANC-AGLAD-0162] . REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 0 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4t

U l

- J > : u . f H 

## ° i U J t H U l E X E u . U l O Q u o u . S 5

_t u > _ I 3 < » S O W O " 2 Z
. < i n < U l b £ d> E 3 (O S ) C D Z < C

M Ulgl^ P < I U l 2

- E f o . . o E 4 U l X 5 E Z o o o o z C I I < . O Q
. * l o 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 Despit e Jul y 200 6 indication s tha t abon dsal e coul dclos e b y Octobe r a s require dunde r

th e leas e [ANC-AGLAD-016 5 - 0168] , b y mi dAugus t 2006 , AGLA D requeste dawaive r

o f th e Octobe r

deadline
. [ANC-AGLAD-0169] . After discussio n wit h th e bon dissuers , AN C staf f propose dextensio n t o Januar y 31 , 2007 , rathe r than waive r [ANC-AGLAD-0171] , an dAGLA D concurred
. [ANC-AGLAD-0171] . I n January , 2007 , AGLA D requeste dwaive r o f th e deadlin e again , thoug h indicatin g tha t a n initia l bon dsal e wa s expecte dth e en do f Marc h 200 7 "a t

th e latest. " [ANC-AGLAD

017 5 a t 0176] . Th e deadlin e wa s allowe dt o pass , bu t b y Decembe r

2007 , ther e ha d bee n n o bon dsale , bu t

no w cam e areques t

fo r afive-month ren t

deferral [ANC

AGLAD-0180] . Alask aDOT&P Fgrante dafour-mont h ren t deferral
. [ANC-AGLAD

0182] . Jus t

amonth int o that

deferral , AGLA D aske dth e newl y appointe dDeputy Commissione r

fo r Aviatio n for

eliminatio n o f

al l interi mdeadline s an dleavin g onl y a final improvement s deadlin e o f 7 ' A years . [ANC-AGLAD-0183-0184 ] Althoug h th e Deputy Commissione r

di dno t agre e t o waive r

o f al l intervenin g deadlines , bu t di d exten dthemonc e again
. [ANC-AGLAD-0186-0187] . [ANC-AGLAD-0165]
.

Contrac t tha t portio n o f

th e AGLA D histor y with CargoPort , whic h i n February 199 8 requeste da n extensio n o f

it s constructio n schedul e [ANC-CargoPort

0087] , whic h AN C staf

f denied
. [ANC-CargoPort-0094] . CargoPort als o aske dfo

r financial assistanc e [ANC-CargoPort-0088] , whic h wa s als o neve r granted
. CargoPort' s origina l $1 0 millio n o f improvement s wer e t o b e accomplishe dwithi n thre e yea r o f th e Octobe r

199 7 beginnin g o f

th e leas e term . ADA-3081 6 Articl e IV. B an d Articl e X. D [ANC-CargoPort-000 7 an d0016 ] an dwa s certifie da s accomplishe db y Jul y 2000 . [ANC-CargoPort-0113] . Unlik e AGLAD , i t wa s onl y after

CargoPort

ha d accomplishedit s majo r

origina l improvement s that it wa s allowe dsom e deadlin e relie f a s t o hardstan dconstructio n o n an adjacen t lease , a s describe di n th e Answer , Exhibi t A , pag e 35-36 , paragrap h 19-3.b.ii
.

Althoug h RD M argue s tha t b y th e tim e Alask aDOT&P Ffinally dre w th e lin e an ddecline dt o gran t additiona l extension , th e projec t wa s o n th e verg e o f

success , that i s precisel y wha t

AGLA D ha dbee n tellin g AN C staf f o n aregular

basi s fo r years . REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 1 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E Ul
U.U I ^ O S E u S " ^Ou i

• - Ul o < •- u E U
. Z U J o < O U J u n u . o C w ^ C O " » ° r< i n 3 C O ( C

^ U l £ . E < U l 3 E Z O O O U . X X 

# i V < n o 1

2 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 • • Ultimatel y ajudgmen t

cal l wa s required
. RD M ma y beliv e i t

wa s poo r judgment , bu t Alask aDOT&P Fpersonne l ha dt o conside r th e propriet y o f

allowin g itsel f

t o b e strun g along , keepin g th e subjec t lan dunavailabl e t o an y mor e capabl e aeronauti c use r o r develope r i n th e meantime
. Staf

f eve n allowe da s th e leas e coul db e allowe dt o laps e an dRD M coul dreapply , retai n al l th e valu e o f it s developmen t

effort , bu t

establis h ne w term s mor e t o it s liking , whil e als o exposin g th e lan dt o potentia l competitiv e interes t t o resolv e concern s abou t

th e propriety o f

allowin g an privat e party t o retai n aleas e o f publi c lan ddesit e suc h apatter n o f performanc e failure s an dwaivers
. [ANC-AGLAD

037 8 - 0380] . RD M declined
. Th e Debenha mfamil y als o decline da n opportunity t o pu t thei r ow n resource s behin dAGLAD . [ANC-005 7 - 0060] . B y clos e compariso n betwee n RDM' s poorl y supporte dallegations , th e well-documen t

fact s presente di n th e Answe r an dth e near

complete failur e o f

RDM' s Repl y t o actuall y mee t

th e fact s Alask aDOT&P Fpresente di n it s Answer , Alask a DOT&P Fha s substantiall y alread y rebutte dRDM' s allegations
. Despit e RDM' s allegation s tha t

AGLA D receive dles s favorabl e term s tha n CargoPort , Alask a DOT&P Fbelieve s th e mor e amor e accurat e analysi s i s presente di n tw o letter s from CargoPort

assertin g tha t

AGLA D wa s receivin g unfairl y preferentia l treatment . [ANC

AGLAD-0329-0332] . F . Th e specifi c statemen t i n RDM^ s Repl y d o no t provid e materia l suppor t fo r it s allegations
. Fo r th e mos t part , RDM' s Repl y boil s dow n t o aserie s o f restatement s o f RDM' s unsupporte dallegations
. T o th e exten t RDM' s comment s i n repl y ad dnothin g t o th e unsupporte dassertion s in th e Complaint , Alask aDOT&P Frelie s o n th e documente dfact s an dexplanation s provide di n it s Answer , an domit s thos e paragraph s below
. Alask aDOT&P Frebut s belo w thos e Repl y statement s tha t ar e sufficientl y substantiv e t o warran t

rebuttal , beginnin g with Sectio n 1 o f th e Reply
. I

n addition , inasmuc h a s man y o f

RDM' s Repl y statement s ar e word-for-wor drepetition s o f on e another , onc e Alask aDOT&P Frebut s on e occurrence o f arepeate dstatement , that

REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 2 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U J 

### $ s 5( 3

- I > U . U J U l b S < I

- U l ? • " au . U l o Q U J o S

u . O C

M

Z - • < l O < ^ ^ e n E 3 ( A S m Z < C M U l
_ l ^ ^ U l > ^ P < I U l Si
. E P C 3
. . O E < U l X 3 E Z O o O O Z U L X Z < ^ O C

L S z

. - < en o 1

2 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 24 2 5 2 6 rebutta l applie s als o t o al l othe r occurrence s o f

tha t statement , an dth e repetitio n paragrap h wil l b e omitted
. Sectio n 1 . Rebutta l t o Repl y t o Seve n Pag e Answe r

1 . "Wha t

tenant s 'brin g t o th e table' " i s adisparagin g wa y t o refer t o th e benefit s th e airport , th e publi c an dth e aviatio n community migh t gai n fro ma propose dproject
. Nothin g i n 49U.S.C . §47107(a ) o r th e Sponso r

Gran t Assurance s require s asponso r

t o ignor e suc h considerations
. Indeed , Assuranc e 22(e ) expressl y state s tha t rule s an dcondition s may tak e int o consideratio n airlin e signatory status . Assuranc e 2 2 does t

no t prohibi t al l differentiation , bu t

onl y discriminatio n tha t

i s unjust ; benefit s t o th e airport

ar e perfectl y vali dconsiderations
. Alask aDOT&P Fobject s t o th e gratuitou s an dwholl y unsupporte dus e o f th e phras e "allege dcultur e o f corruption. " Non e o f RDM' s allegation s eve n remotel y resemblin g corruption
. 5
. RD M an dAGLA D wer e clearl y in th e rea l estat e developmen t business , no t

i n busines s t o provid e aeronautica l services
. Althoug h RD M assert s tha t history late r

showe dth e leas e deadline s t o pos e challenges , it doe s no t sa y AGLA D objecte dt o them
. I n repl y t o aparagrap h abou t AGLA D i n th e 200 2 timeframe , lon g befor e RD M eve n becam e involved , RD M make s a n oddl y out-of-plac e referenc e t o bringin g th e Alask aNativ e Regiona l Corporation , Coo k Inle t Region , Inc . (CIRI ) t o th e tabl e a s apotentia l investor
. RD M complain s tha t th e airpor t

"continue dt o refus e t o wor k with AGLA D t o renegotiat e th e leas e terms. " A s show n i n aNovembe r 4 , 200 8 emai l fromJeanett e Lucke y t o Shau n Debenham , airport staf f wer e continuin g t o wor

k towar dasolution , bu t

coul dno t

blithel y "renegotiate " a

n existin g leas e o f

publi c property withou t

publi c notic e a s t o possibl e changes , an dther e wa s concern abou t th e propriety o f

allowin g an entity t o acquir e adefaulte dleas e an drenegotiat e it , rathe r than makin g i t competitivel y available
. Se e [ANC-AGLAD-0378-0380] . Beside s ther e wa s n o righ t t o renegotiat e existin g leas e terms , se e 4 1 North 7 3 West , In c v . Count

y o f Westchester , FA A Docke t 16-07-13 , (Septembe r

18 , 2009 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 3 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U l S o

- I > U . U J

H - U l E Z E u . U l O Q U J o o o C M o 3 " ° Z
. < i n < U l ^ <j > E 3 U ) ( o c a z < C

M U l ^ 3 r . O < • S E E ( 3
. . O E < U J X 5 E Z o o o o n o 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 p . 28) , beyon dth e extension s alread y granted , an dn o allegatio n Alask aDOT&P Fgav e that benefi t t o an y similarl y situate dtenant . 6 . A s it

di di n it s Complaint , RD M agai n assert s her e an dsevera l othe r place s i n it s Repl y tha t

AGLA D coul dhav e initiall y lease dasmalle r parce l ha d Alask aDOT&P Fallowe dit aFirs t Righ t o f Refusal (FROR) . RD M ignore s th e FA A guidance , describe di n Paragrap h 19-8. f o n pag e 5 1 o f

Exhibi t A t o Alask aDOT&PF' s Answer , tha t

airport s avoi dgrantin g FRORs . Se e A C 150/5190-6 , Exclusiv e Right s an d Minimu mStandard s fo

r Commercia l Aeronautica l Activities : Advisor y Circular , January 4 , 200 7 a

t 6 Airport sponsor s ar e bette r

serve db y requirin g tha t

lease s t o a singl e aeronautica l servic e provide r b e limite dt o th e amoun t o f lan dth e servic e provide r ca n demonstrat e i t

actuall y need s an dca n b e pu t

t o immediat e productiv e use . I n th e even t that additiona l spac e i s require dlater , th e airport sponso r may requir e th e incumben t

servic e provide r

t o compet e alon g wit h al l othe r qualifie dservic e provider s fo r th e availabl e airport land
. Th e gran t

o f option s o r

preference s o n fijture airport leas e site s t o asingl e servic e provide r may b e construe da s inten t t o gran t an exclusiv e righ t

an dtherefore , th e us e o f lease s with option s o r

future preferences , suc h a s rights-of

first refiisal , mus t

generall y b e avoided
. Thi s i s becaus e a righ t o f first refusal can allo w a

n existin g tenant , a

t littl e o r n o cost , t o hol daclai mo n airport lan dthat coul db e use dfo

r a secon dFBO , the n leas e that lan dwhe n ther e i s aprospec t o f competition
. See , also , JetAway Aviation , Inc . v . Montros e County , FA A Docke t 16-08-01 , (Jul y 2 , 2009 ) (Director' s Determinatio n a t 23) : A righ t o f first refusal fo

r future occupanc y o f

th e sam e leasehol di s generall y o f greate r concer n becaus e i t

migh t limi t an airport

sponsor' s ability t o chang e th e us e o f property i n th e future , whe n th e public' s interes t i n aviatio n may deman dsom e othe r

use . Thi s i s potentiall y aviolatio n o f gran t assuranc e 5
. However , th e fact s in thi s cas e ar e fa r to o speculativ e for

afinding o f

non-complianc e in relate dt o gran t assuranc e 5
. T o avoi dfutur e problems , th e County i s wel l REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 4 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U J

U . U J U l P S < I - U l E Z E u . U l O O u j o §

Z . < i n < U J > £ (j , E 3 C O i n ca Z < C M < 5 U l £ E p O
. . o E < U l X 3 E Z o o o o Z L L X X < . O Q
. 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 advise dt o negotiate th e eliminatio n o f th e right-of-firs t refusal provisio n i n it s existin g leases
. . 7 . RDM' s lis t

o f al l th e allege dmisconduc t b y Alask aDOT&P F completel y ignore s an dfail s t o mee t an y o f th e fact s presente dthroughou t Alask a DOT&PF' s Answe r

describin g accurat e fact s demonstratin g tha t man y o f preference s Alask aDOT&P Fi s allege dt o hav e grante dFedEx , UP S o r CargoPort

ar e jus t flat erroneou s reading s o f

th e recor dwit h respec t

t o thos e tenants , wh o neve r receive dmos t o f th e allege dfavore dterm s o r treatmen t

described
. 8 . RDM' s allegatio n tha t CargoPort' s secon dleas e wa s no t require d t o g o ou t for publi c notic e i s simpl e false
. A cop y o f th e publi c notic e i s provide d herewith a

t [ANC-CargoPort

- 0199] . 9 . RDM' s repeate dallegatio n that th e Airport

tol dRD M that

it woul d no t mee t with RD M unles s i

t ha dproo f

RD M wa s authorize dt o ac t fo r AGLAD , an d that th e Airpor t

me t wit h RD M onl y after

RD M presente dit s Optio n Agreemen t i s als o simpl y false
. Indeed , RD M describe s thre e meeting s betwee n Octobe r 1 4 an d Novembe r

27 , 2008 , ye t

attache s th e Optio n Agreemen t date dan dsigne dNovembe r 18 , 2008 . 5e e Exhibi t

B t o Reply
. 12 . I t i s simpl y untru e tha t

th e Novembe r

200 5 leas e wa s presente d "tak e it o r leav e it. " A s note dabove , i t wa s AGLA D th e propose dthat th e leas e b e mad e "contingent " t o dea l with th e financial responsibilit y question , [ANC-AGLAD

015 7 a t 0160] , an dacontemporaneou s not e t o file a t reflect s othe r

negotiate dterm s [ANC-AGLAD-0162] . Moreover , RD M itsel f note s tha t

th e leas e wa s signe d"afte r man y year s o f

negotiation. " Repl y a

t 19 , paragrap h 19-3.j(ii) , an dallege s that AGLA D wa s no t awar e o f certai n thing s "at

th e tim e o r

negotiatin g it s lease, " see , e.g . Repl y at 22 , paragrap h 19-8.f

. 15
. A s describe dabove , AGLA D volunteere dt o mak e th e leas e contingen t

o n deadline s in lie u o f

abon do r

othe r proo f o f financial responsibility
. REBUTTA L RDM , LL C v . AN C Pag e 1 5 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U J 

# I n u . u> ^ O ^ E 1 - S ° ° 5 2 U l I

- U l o E Z £ au . z L U o < Q U J O " i 5 t m_ , 3 o > 2 M » 2

- < i n 3:^ 3 Z < C M U l J — > rf f ^ S * * o I ui e E < U l 3 E z

. - < m o 1

2 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 Ther e i s n o indicatio n th e deadline s wer e problemati c unti l the y ha dslippe dan dbee n extende dmultipl e times , leavin g th e projec t fiirther an dfurther

behin dschedul e a s n o faul t o f Alask aDOT&PF . 16 . Th e assertio n that

th e AGLA D sit e ha dbee n dewatere din 200 8 i s no t true , a s describe di n th e Affidavi t o f Joh n E . Johansen , P.E . filedherewith an d numbere da s [ANC-0050-0054]
.

Alask aDOT&P Fha dn o dut y t o re-negotiat e th e leas e i n th e fall o f 200 8 t o sav e AGLA D fro mterm s i t ha dbee n unabl e t o mee t

despit e repeate dextensio n an d relaxation
. Nonetheless , staf f trie dt o findsolution s withou t improperl y agreein g t o completel y overhau l it s terms , allowin g AGLA D t o hol dth e leas e despit e defaul t an d withou t exposin g th e are aagai n t o competitiv e interest
. Se e [ANC-AGLAD-037 8 - 0380] . T o th e bes t

o f th e knowledg e o f

AN C management , RD M neve r aske d whethe r Alask aDOT&P F"woul db e abl e t o ow n th e AGLA D development. " Se e Affidavi t o f Joh n Parrot t

filedherewith an dnumbere da s [ANC-0055-0056]
. I t i s tru e tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fown s th e taxiway s betwee n th e variou s lease dpremise s becaus e thos e taxiway s provid e acces s t o adifferen t leasehol do n eac h sid e o f th e taxiwa y an dt o othe r

lease dpremise s beyond—whic h i s als o tru e o f taxiway "U " adjacen t

t o th e AGLA D premise s o n th e north
. Alask aDOT&P Fdoe s no t ow n any taxilane s interna l t o an y lease dpremises , includin g th e east-wes t taxilan e o n th e north sid e o f CargoPort

an dth e north-south taxilane s interna l t o th e FedE x an dUP S leaseholds
. 17 . CargoPort wa s neve r

grante dextensio n o f

an y deadlin e o n it s primar y lease , ADA-30816 . Eve n o n it s separat e secondary ramp lease , CargoPort wa s give n n o mor e tota l developmen t tim e tha n AGLAD , with mor e incrementa l completio n requirement s than AGLAD , eve n thoug h CargoPort ha dalread y establishe datrac k recor do f successfu l projec t

completion
.

REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 6 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l S o

- J > U . Ul

^ ^ I - U l E Z E u . U l O Q u i y u . o o CM U J T "

_C i n _ Z 3 e n 2 O < o « » 2 Z . < i n < U l ^

cj , E 3 ( O < o O Q Z < C M "JS^ P « ? - s < I U l 2 t o E < U l X 3 E Z o o o o Z u l X X < ^ O Q
. $ 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 22 2 3 24 2 5 2 6 20 . Despit e RDM' s characterizatio n that AGLA D requeste d "advantage s commensurat e with what other s wer e granted, " RD M present s zer o comparativ e analysi s with respec t t o th e "advantages " requeste dan dgrante do r denie d o r t o th e similarity o f

th e situations
. In fact , AGLA D requeste dth e unprecedente d lenienc y o f

complet e freedo mfromdeadlines , wit h n o supportin g financial security
. 21 . A s demonstrate dthroughou t Alask aDOT&PF' s Answer , i t appear s that RDM' s frustratio n ove r

perceive ddifference s in treatmen t wa s cause dlargel y b y it s misunderstandin g o f

ho w th e othe r

tenant s wer e actuall y treated , combine dwit h a failure t o recogniz e tha t

quit e dissimilar

situation s that

prevaile damon g th e tenants . 22 . Standin g issue s ar e deal t wit h in th e accompanyin g (an d incorporated ) Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismiss
. Sectio n 2 . Rebutta l t o Repl y t o Answe r Exhibi t A A s previousl y noted , RDM' s Repl y mostl y jus t restate s it s unsupporte dallegations
. Relyin g o n th e documente dexplanation s i n it s Answer , Alask aDOT&P Fomit s belo w rebutta l t o repl y paragraph s that ad dnothin g new , rebuttin g thos e repl y statement s that ar e sufficientl y substantiv e t o warran t rebuttal
. I n som e case s Alask aDOT&P Fals o passe s ove r

somewha t

substantiv e comment s tha t are , nevertheless , no t

supporte db y any evidence
. A singl e rebutta l applie s als o t o al l othe r occurrence s o f

th e sam e repl y statement . 6 . Notwithstandin g that AGLA D ma

y wel l hav e begu n th e "developmen t process, " th e sit e photo s at [ANC-000 2 - 0009 ] sho w that an y physica l developmen t effor t "on th e ground " wa s no t significant
. 9 . AN C ha s been , by-and-large , develope db y aeronauti c user s developin g project s for

thei r ow n use , a s FedE x an dUP S did
. Alask aDOT&P Fconcede s tha t th e rea l estat e developmen t

mode l describe db y RD M i s a-typica l a t ANC , a t leas t wit h respec t t o larg e projects
. CargoPort , th e mos t notabl e exampl e o f

th e real estat e developmen t

model , wa s accomplishe do n asimilar tigh t an drelativel y unyieldin g REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 7 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l
U. U t O S E I - S " " Sgu j S t 2 I

- U J o E Z 2 <i- 5 E u . Z U J o < Q U J O o o C M t i n _ , = > ffi o

. < i n 3 C O ( O Z < r g U l Z J ^ 2 ur e E < U l 3 E z o o o U L X X 

# i V
m o 2

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 schedule , pre-finance dan dbacke db y aperformanc e bon dthat require dconstructio n t o begi n before th e projec t

wa s leased
. 9-l.a
. Alask aDOT&P Fdi dno t mean t o sugges t

tha t th e Alask aIndustria l Developmen t

an dExpor t

Authority o r

RB C capita l Market s "lied " abou t th e AGLA D projec t bein g on-trac k

for financing—only tha t

th e representations turne dou t t o hav e bee n mistaken
. Ther e i s n o evidenc e whatsoeve r tha t leas e deadline s agreed-t o b y AGLA D ha danythin g t o d o with slippag e o f th e initia l bon dsal e deadlin e als o agree d t o b y AGLAD , muc h les s tha t Alask aDOT&P Fshoul db e blame dfo r term s agree dt o b y th e parties
. 9- 2 - 9-10 . Alask aDOT&P Fwoul dhav e love dt o se e th e AGLA D facilit y buil t t o mee t th e need s o f

eac h o f th e prospectiv e sublessees
. Unfortunately , AGLA D wa s apparentl y no t

u p t o th e task
. Alask aDOT&P Fdi dno t reduc e it s aircraf

t parkin g fe e unti l th e AGLA D leas e ha dbee n terminated , an dno t onl y owe s n o dut

y t o support privat e develope r

marke t price s fo r aircraf t parking , bu t

i s expressl y forbidde n b y th e FA A fromusin g marke t

pricin g o n th e airfield
. 10-f
. Accordin g t o th e accompanyin g Affidavi t o f Joh n E . Johansen , P.E. , [ANC-0050-0054 ] th e AGLA D sit e a s no t bee n dewatered , regardles s what AGLA D ma y hav e pai dt o work

o n th e issue
. 14 . RDM' s allegatio n o f "similar developmen t

pattern s o f

developin g bot

h hardstand s fo

r aircraf t servicin g an dbuildin g spac e fo r industria l use " scarcel y meet s th e burde n o f

provin g similarl y situate da s require do r Part 1 6 Gran t Assuranc e analysis
. Alask aDOT&P Fdenie s th e conclusory allegatio n i n th e first sentenc e o f

th e paragrap h o f th e Complain t

marke da s paragrap h 1 4 o n Exhibi t B o f thi s Answer , bu t

admit s that ther e i s aroug h similarit y i n locatio n amon g CargoPort , FedEx , UP S an dAGLAD , denie s tha t

th e similarit y i n siz e i s sufficien t tha t the y ar e similarl y situated , denie s that
REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 8 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U J < o

- I > U . U J U J P 5 < h - U l E Z E u . U l O Q i u u Z5S 8 o « » ° Z ' < i n < ^ ^ a > E 3 C

O t b O Q Z < C M "JS^ P < T U l a . E f o . . o E < U l X 3 E Z o o o o Z iJ L X X < ^ O Q
. 1

2 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 ther e i s similarit y o f us e amon g FedEx , UP S an dAGLAD , an dadmit s tha t ther e i s similarity i n us e betwee n CargoPort an dAGLAD . 16-a . RD M improperl y aggregate s th e are ao f tw o separat e CargoPort

lease s develope di n series , with th e secon dbeginnin g after th e first wa s substantiall y complete
. 16-d
. RD M note s tha t

UP S preferenfiall y lease dtw o Alask aDOT&P F hardstands
. Althoug h i t

woul dhav e bee n imprope r fo r Alask aDOT&P Ft o preferentiall y leas e hardstand s t o adeveloper , t o then leas e t o ai r carrier s a t marke t rates , th e ai r

carrier s coul dhav e requeste dpreferentia l lease s directl y fromAlask a DOT&P Ffor

us e i n conjunctio n with th e AGLA D facility
. 18 . Pleas e se e discussio n abov e unde r headin g D (RD M ha s no t carrie dit s burde n o f proo f tha t AGLA D wa s similarl y situate dt o FedE x UP S o r CargoPort , whic h it wa s not) . 19-l.d
. Althoug h RD M assert s tha t havin g n o financial requiremen t fo r AGLA D woul dhav e complie dwith th e gran t assurances , th e opposite i s true . Bu t th e reality i s tha t

Alask aDOT&P Falread y pushe dth e limit s o f that notio n b y allowin g AGLA D t o ente r

int o th e leas e unde r

th e term s tha t

i t did
. Alask aDOT&P Freduce d th e requirement s o n AGLA D relativ e t o CargoPort b y no t requirin g acompletio n bon d that AGLA D coul dno t

provide
. Th e lac k

o f abon dlef

t AN C subjec t

t o ris k no t onl y o f th e propert y sittin g undeveloped , bu t als o o f havin g aprojec t

ge t half-starte dan dthe n b e lef t dug-u p an deroding
. A s th e FA A note din Brow n Transp . Co . v . Cit y o f Holland , FA A Docke t

No . 16-05-09 , (Marc h 1 , 2006 ) (Director' s Determination ) pag e 21 : "th e Cit y can' t appl y requirement s t o on e party an dignor e th e ris k o f th e activitie s o f

othe r similarl y situate dparties. " Id
. a t 21 . It wa s precisel y t o avoi dunfairl y ignorin g th e ris k o f AGLAD' s questionabl e an dunprove n financial capacity—a n issu e that Alask aDOT&P Fha d manage da s t o CargoPor t b y requirin g a$1 0 millio n guarante e that AGLA D coul dno t REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 9 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U J 

### » S 3( 5

- J > • u . U J

U J b S < I - U l E Z ?* " E u . U l O Q u i o i l o o C M

Z - < i

n < ^ ^ d > E 3 ( AS I ( 0 Z < C M "jS^f ^ < X U l £ E f C 5 . . o E < U l X 5 E Z o o o o z u . X X < ^ o 0 . t o o 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 18 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 provide—tha t

compelle dAlask aDOT&P Ft o impos e financing deadline s i n th e lease , an dultimatel y dra w aline
. 19-2.a . Th e notio n tha t CargoPor t

go t asecon dleas e havin g faile dt o fulfill it s obligation s unde r

th e first leas e i s patentl y fals e a s documente di n th e Answer , Exhibi t A , pag e 35-36 , paragrap h 19-2.a . CargoPort' s origina l $1 0 millio n o f improvement s wer e t o b e accomplishe dwithi n thre e year o f th e Octobe r

199 7 beginnin g o f th e leas e term . ADA-3081 6 Articl e IV. B an dArticl e X. D [ANC-CargoPort-000 7 an d 0016 ] an dwa s certifie da s accomplishe db y Jul y 13 , 2000 . [ANC-CargoPort-0113] . Onl y then di dAlask aDOT&P Fente r int o ADA-3104 3 with CargoPort . [ANC

CargoPort-011-0151]
. 19-2.b
. I t

i s untru e that

every AGLA D hardstan dwa s require dt o b e complete db y astate dspecifi c date
. Originall y nin e wer e require di n Phas e One . Ther e wa s n o specificatio n whethe r o r ho w man y o f

th e thre e remainin g (1 2 total ) hardstand s that paragrap h 8 o f

th e Complain t

say s AGLA D planned , ha dt o b e constructed
. [ANC

AGLAD-0016] . B y th e tim e o f Leas e Supplemen t

3 , th e requiremen t

wa s dow n t o thre e in Stag e On e an dfive in Stag e Two , with n o particular requiremen t

fo r four more . [ANC-AGLAD-0069] . 19-2. C . A s describe din th e Answer , i t appear s constructio n o f

Hardstand s 7 an d1 2 wa s actuall y accomplishe dnearl y ayear ahea do f schedule
. 19-2.e . It s curiou s that RD M ca n eve n assert

tha t CargoPort

go t mor e favorabl e treatmen t

then i t wa s denie dan y completio n extensio n unti l th e first $1 0 millio n dollar s o f

constructio n wa s done , an dwa s grante dother s onl y a s mor e deadline s wer e met , ye t

AGLA D misse dnearl y every on e o f it s deadlines , ye t

kep t gettin g extension s withou t

actuall y gettin g anythin g built
.

• • • • 19-3.a . RD M fail s t o rea dth e lease
. Th e termo f ADA-3081 6 began Octobe r 1 , 1997 . Sectio n VLB . [ANC-CargoPort-0007] . Th e thre e year s for completio n REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 20 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U l S o

- J > U
. U l ^ § UJ f H U l a z E u . UJ O O u j o o o C M
Z - < i n < U J :> £ cJ > E 3 u > (

O C Q Z < C

M U l J ^ ^ U l > « I - < T U l * E £ O v. ^ E ^ ^ U J X o E Z O o o o Z I L I - ^ < en o 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 o f improvement s ran fro mtha t ter mbeginnin g date
. Sectio n X.D . [ANC-CargoPort

0013] . CargoPort

receive dN O extensio n o f tha t deadline , an dfully satisfie dit
. Th e lette r fro mRichar dWilso n relate s t o releas e o f th e bon ddu e t o th e wor

k havin g bee n timel y completed
. [ANC-CargoPort-0113-0117] . 19-3.b.i i an diii
. CargoPort ha datota l o f

seve n year s t o ge t

it s las t on e ofte n hardstand s finished. AGLA D ha dseve n year s t o ge t las t five o f eigh t hardstands , plu s nearl y hal f

o f it s buildin g squar e footag e finished. I t i s unclear

wha t "luxury " AGLA D wa s denied
. 19-3.h
. RD M allege s comparabilit y betwee n th e CargoPort projec t an dth e AGLA D projec t

b y collapsin g CargoPort' s tw o lease s together , bu t the n insist s o n comparin g term s an dtreatmen t betwee n onl y CargoPort' s secondary ram p lease , ADA

3104 3 an dAGLAD' s lease
. Ther e i s no t even apretens e o f

"similarl y situated " here
. Comparin g CargoPort' s origina l ramp an dwarehous e lease , ADA-30816 , t o AGLAD' s first phase/stag e a s originall y state dan da s extende dunde r Supplemen t

no . 3 look s like this : CargoPort AGLA D Phas e 1 Sup p 3 Stag e On e $ 1 0 Millio n $2 5 Millio n $ 1 0 Millio n 5 Hardstand s 9 Hardstand s 3 Hardstand s 100,00 0 sq.ft
. bld g 50,00 0 sq.ft
. bld g 28,00 0 sq.ft
. bldg
. 0 3 3 year s 2 5 year s Minimu mInvestmen t Wor k Require d Completio n Extension s Tota l Tim e t o Complet e 19-3.j(iv ) Th e tw o lease s that canno t fairly b e compare dar e AGLAD' s leas e an dCargoPort' s supplementa l ramp-onl y lease , ADA-31043 , whic h doe s no t includ e a warehouse , an dwhic h Alask aDOT&P Fneve r admitte dt o b e comparabl e t o AGLAD' s lease.
. REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. ANC Pag e 2 1 o f 42 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< E U l
U.U I < O Z E E 0 0 z S 1 1 ? • * E H U l o E Z £ <l- g E u . Z UJ O < Q u i u C M ttf 5 t i n _ 3 2 § t o < " °

- < i n Z < C M " J - J c - > < fc I U l e p o . . C C < U l 3 E Z

. _< 2

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 19-6.d
. Alask aDOT&P Fgav e Mr . Nun n achoic e betwee n "free " fill fro m wes t o f th e north-south runway wher e alowere dgrad e woul dbenefi t th e airport , o r

a minima l $0.2 5 pe r

cubi c yar dfro

maclose r

locatio n wher e lowerin g th e grad e woul d no t particularl y benefi t

ANC . Mr . Nun n chos e th e $0.2 5 pe r cubi c yar doption
. 19-7.a . Ther e wa s n o "sal e an dlease-back " with CargoPort . Alask a DOT&P Fdi dno t

pay anythin g t o CargoPort , bu t merel y agree dt o accep t

titl e t o pu t

th e facilit y int o governmen t

ownership
. 19-7.b
. Se e Affidavi t o f Joh n Parrott , AAE , [ANC-0055-0056]. 19-7.d
. RD M misunderstand s th e CargoPor t titl e transaction
. Alask a DOT&P Fdi dno t

undertak e t o agre e t o an y deb t "owe do n thos e improvements. " Th e bond s wer e no t

issue db y o r

fo r Alask aDOT&P Fan dar e no t secure db y th e improvements , bu t

onl y b y th e subleas e revenu e strea mtha t CargoPort

can generat e s o lon g a s it remain s i n goo dstandin g unde r th e lease.
. 19-7.e . CargoPort

secure dit s long-termfinancing onl y afte r buildin g th e facilitie s with it s ow n resources , whic h enable dit t o attrac t lease s t o afinished, rathe r tha n onl y apropose dproject
. 19-8 . Se e paragrap h 6 o f Sectio n 1 a

t pag e 13 , above
. 19-9. aTh e thir dparagrap h o f thi s sectio n o n pag e 5 2 o f Answe r Exhibi t A , with correc t

Recor dCitations , shoul drea da s follows :

Responden t

denie s RDM' s identificatio n o f th e then-existin g apro n that wa s subjec t

t o th e Developmen t

Agreement . RDM' s Exhibi t K p. 2 include s ablac k

rectangl e tha t

RD M incorrectl y dre w o n th e drawin g an dtha t doe s no t exis t o n th e documen t

depicted
. Responden t affirmativel y state s that

th e muc h smalle r

portio n o f

th e then-existin g apro n subjec t

t o th e Developmen t

Agreemen t

i s identifie din Articl e I o f REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 22 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U l

I - S " zgu J 5 < g I - U l o E X £ E u . Z l U O < Qu i u C M

11 1 ' " 3 ffi § c n " " 2 ' < i n 3 C O i n Z < C M " J - J c ; ui"£
. f C 3
. . E < U l 3 E Z

. - < 3

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

1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 ADA-3017 2 (F-1 ) [ANC-FedEx-0064 ] an dtha t th e highlighte darea s o n Respondent' s four-pag e illustrativ e exhibi t a t [ANC-FedEx-019 4 - 0197 ] correctl y identifie s th e subjec t portio n o f

th e then-existin g apro n subjec t t o ADA-3017 2 an dth e Developmen t Agreement . Th e balanc e o f th e then

existin g apro n wa s par t

o f th e first righ t o f refusal are aand , unde r

Sectio n V. E o f th e lease , no t

subjec t t o us e b y FedEx
. Se e ADA-3017 2 a t 9 [ANC-FedEx-0072]
. 19-9.e.2 . A s note di n th e Answer , th e paymen t incorrectl y describe di n th e Repl y a s bein g pai dove r

2 5 year s wa s actuall y pai din lump su m1 9 year s ago . I t shoul dals o b e note dtha t

Alask aDOT&P Fcoul donl y charg e UP S fo r th e State' s shar e o f th e cost , an dnothin g towar dth e AI P portion , becaus e FA A rate s an dcharge s polic y forbid s inclusio n o f

any monie s provide db y th e FA A i n th e rat e bas e fo r an airfiel d charge
. Tha t

polic y may dete r

privat e investmen t

i n improvement s that

ar e eligibl e for federal participatio n because , fo r example , i t

may no t b e possibl e t o recove r

th e cos t o f privat e developmen t

i f th e airport

i s forbidde n fromchargin g marke t rate s an drequire d t o charg e muc h lowe r

rate s fo r comparabl e AI P funded-space
. Bu t that i s FA A policy
. 19-9./ . Althoug h i t

woul dhav e bee n imprope r for Alask aDOT&P Ft o preferentiall y leas e hardstand s t o adeveloper , t o the n leas e t o ai r carrier s a t marke t rates , th e ai r

carrier s coul dhav e requeste dpreferentia l lease s directl y fro mAlask a DOT&P Ffo

r us e i n conjunctio n with th e AGLA D facility
. 19-1 0 I t i s tru e tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fown s th e taxiway s betwee n th e variou s lease dpremise s becaus e thos e taxiway s provid e acces s t o adifferen t leasehol do n eac h sid e o f th e taxiwa y an dt o othe r

lease dpremise s beyond—whic h i s als o tru e o f taxiwa y "U " adjacen t

t o th e AGLA D premise s o n th e north
. Alask aDOT&P Fdoe s no t ow n an y taxilane s interna l t o an y lease dpremises , includin g th e east-wes t taxilan e o n th e north sid e o f CargoPort

an dth e north-south taxilane s interna l t o th e FedE x an dUP S leaseholds
. I

n addition , th e AGLA D leas e provide dfo r th e possibilit y o f

makin g REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 3 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l S 5 < C 3

- I > - U . U l

^ ^ h - U l E Z E u . U l O Q S s

C M [! i 5 I 3 O ) 2 O ^ o . 5 Z r < i n < U J ^

^ E 3 W lO mz < C M u l — I ^. s U l 5 ; 3 h
. < X " J " E i o . . o E < U

J X 3 E Z 050 0 z ! k X X < • O 0
. 1

2 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 Taxiway "N " publi c an dth e responsibilit y o f Alask aDOT&P Fth e adjacent lan dwer e t o b e lease db y anyon e othe r than AGLAD . [ANC-AGLAD-0266] . 19-11 . Alask aDOT&P Fdi dno t reduc e it s aircraf

t parkin g fe e unti l th e AGLA D leas e ha dbee n terminated , an dno t onl y owe s n o dut

y t o support

privat e develope r marke t price s for

aircraf t parking , an di s expressl y forbidde n b y th e FA A fromusin g marke t pricin g o n th e airfield
. 19- 1 Lb
. Alask aDOT&P Fdi dno t reduc e it s aircraf

t parkin g fe e unti l th e AGLA D leas e ha dbee n terminated , an dno t onl y owe s n o duty t o support privat e develope r marke t price s for

aircraf t parking , bu t

i s expressl y forbidde n b y th e FA A fromusin g marke t

pricin g o n th e airfield
. RD M offer s n o support for it s speculatio n that Alask aDOT&PF' s cost-cente r calculatio n methodolog y i s "jus t a n excuse " fo

r settin g whateve r

rat e Alask aDOT&P Fwant s to . 19-12.b
. Alask aDOT&P Fcontribute dmillion s o f dollar s worth o f

wetlan d credit s generate da

t it s ow n cos t

an dwithou t

seekin g recover y o f

thos e cost s from AGLA D t o enabl e AGLA D t o obtai n th e permit
. Se e Email s fro mRic h Wilso n (regardin g providin g wetlan dcredit s t o AGLA D a t n o charge ) [ANC-AGLAD-0113] , an dfromScott

Lyti c (estimatin g valu e o f wetlan dcredit s allocate dt o AGLA D a s $3.4 4 million ) [ANC-AGLAD-0185]
. I f appear s that

Alask aDOT&P Fcontribute dth e majority o f

th e cos t o f th e permit , an dthat

th e permi t

los t al l valu e t o AGLA D onc e AGLA D los t

th e lease
. O n informatio n an dbelief , aCorp s permi t

i s bette r though t o f a s a n improvemen t

t o th e lan dnecessaril y abandone db y adefaultin g lesse e rathe r than marketabl e persona l propert y o f th e lesse e tha t

th e lesso r

mus t purchas e froma defaultin g lessee
. I n addition , a s alesse e that defaulte do n an obligatio n t o develo p ove r $25,000,00 0 o f

carg o facilitie s a

t ANC , an dt o pa y ren t

fo r 5 5 years , AGLA D ha s aver y substantia l liability fo

r damage s t o Alask aDOT&PF . Th e wetlan dpermi t wa s abou t

t o expir e i n Apri l 2009 . Th e action s o f Alask aDOT&P Ft o secur e th e permi t als o REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 4 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U J s S S o

- I > U . U J % ^ t - U l E X a . u . U J o o L L a o C M U l * * X 3 0 > S o w <" S Z .. r < • " < ^ J ^ < » E 3 ( A S m Z < C

M U l J - ~ U l > ^ t ^ < 5 ui s E f ( 3
. . O E < U l X 3 E Z O O O O Z u l X X < . ^ O Q
. S z , - < m 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 prevente dit

fro mlapsin g an dlosin g al l o f it s value
. I f

nothin g else , Alask aDOT&PF' s actio n wa s appropriat e mitigatio n o f th e State' s damages
. 23-1 . RD M ha s no t

show n that

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d wit h FedEx , UP S o r

CargoPort , tha t

AGLA D objecte dt o th e origina l financing termi n it s lease , o r

tha t th e financing termwa s no t reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f a performanc e bond , lac k

o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r carg o development , togethe r wit h stat e o r federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfor th e subjec t

property . 23-2 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with CargoPor t

wit h respec t

t o eithe r ADA-3081 6 o r

ADA-31043 , tha t

Alask a DOT&P Fdenie dRD M o r AGLA D extension s tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fgrante dt o CargoPort unde r substantiall y similar

circumstances , that

AGLA D objecte dt o th e origina l deadline s it s lease , o r that th e deadlin e terman deac h extensio n o r denial o f extensio n wa s no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstratedfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e in ai r

carg o development , togethe r

with stat e o r

federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r

circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfo r th e subjec t

property , 23-3 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d wit h CargoPor t

wit h respec t

t o eithe r ADA-3081 6 o r

ADA-31043 , tha t

Alask a DOT&P Fdenie dRD M o r AGLA D extension s base do n world/nationa l recessio n tha t Alask aDOT&P Fgrante dt o CargoPort unde r substantiall y similar

circumstances , that AGLA D objecte dt o th e origina l deadline s it s lease , o r tha t th e deadlin e terman deac h extensio n o r

denia l o f extensio n wa s no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f a performanc e bond , lac k

o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r carg o development , togethe r wit h stat e o r federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfo r th e subjec t

property, 23-4 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d wit h CargoPor t

with respec t

t o eithe r ADA-3081 6 o r

ADA-31043 , tha t

Alask a REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 5 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l

- I > U . Ul 

### ^ ? U l t S < I - U l E Z E u . U l O 

### s

C M w 5 C " "
.. . X 3 o > 9 Z - < i n < ! U ^ d > E 3 ( O I D "532
. U l > < 1 ^ < - U J s . E £ o . . o E < U l X 3 E Z 050 0 Z u l X X < • O Q
. 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 DOT&P Fdenie dRD M o r AGLA D a

n initia l termi n whic h t o complet e improvement s o f simila r length a s Alask aDOT&P Fgrante dt o CargoPort unde r substantiall y simila

r circumstances , tha t

AGLA D objecte dt o th e origina l termt o complet e it s improvements , o r tha t th e ter man deac h extensio n o r denia l o f extensio n wa s no t

reasonabl y justifie d b y AGLAD' s lac k

o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r

carg o development , togethe r wit h stat e o r federal law s o r regulation s an dothe r

circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfor th e subjec t property , 23-5
. RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with FedE x o r

CargoPort , that

AGLA D objecte dt o th e origina l ter mtha t allowe d defaul t o f future developmen t

area s for failur e t o develo p earlie r developmen t

areas, that Alask aDOT&P Fha deve r give n an y similarl y situate dtenan t term s tha t

allowe d th e tenan t t o retai n late r

developmen t

area s despit e defaul t

a s t o earlie r

in it s lease , o r that th e term s grante dt o RD M o r AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r

carg o development , togethe r with stat e o r

federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfo r th e subjec t

property . 23-6 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d wit h FedE x o r

CargoPort , that

AGLA D objecte dt o th e origina l term s that lacke dren t deferral , tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fgav e ren t deferral t o FedE x o r

CargoPort

whil e the y wer e in defaul t

o r missin g deadline s o r

otherwis e unde r

substantiall y similar circumstance s in whic h ren t deferral wa s denie dt o RD M o r AGLA D o r

that th e term s grante do r

denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r

carg o development , togethe r with stat e o r

federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfo r th e subjec t

property . 23-7 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with FedEx , tha t

AGLA D objecte dt o th e requiremen t tha t it pay bac k deferre dren t promptly , tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fgav e mor e preferentia l ren t deferral repaymen t

term s t o REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 6 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U J $ S 5 0

- J > U
. U J U l g s < H U l E Z ? ^ E u . U J O Q u i o u . s C M
Z - < i n < ! " ^ <j

> E 3 (/ } ( o O Q Z < C

M U l ^ — * U l > < r - < X ui £ E f O
. . o E < U l X 3 E Z o o o o Z i T T T •Si S U 0
. 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 FedE x unde r

substantiall y similar

circumstance s i

n whic h similar

ren t repaymen t

term s wer e denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D o r

that th e term s grante do r

denie dt o RD M o r AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstratedfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r

carg o development , togethe r

with stat e o r

federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r

circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfor th e subjec t

property . 23-8 . RD M ha s no t

show n that

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d wit h FedE x o r

UPS , that

AGLA D objecte dt o th e absenc e o f arigh t t o free fill materia l fro mth e Lesso r

unde r th e lease , tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fgav e mor e preferentia l fre e fill term s t o FedE x o r

UP S unde r

substantiall y simila

r circumstance s i n whic h free fill materia l fro mth e Lesso r

wa s denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D o r

tha t th e term s grante do r denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f a performanc e bond , lac k

o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e in ai r carg o development , togethe r with stat e o r

federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfo r th e subjec t

property . 23-9 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with CargoPort , that

AGLA D objecte dt o th e absenc e o f arigh t t o sel l improvement s t o th e Lesso r

unde r th e lease , tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fgav e t o CargoPor t arigh t t o sel l improvement s t o th e Lesso r unde r th e leas e unde r

substantiall y similar

circumstance s i n whic h arigh t

t o sel l improvement s t o th e Lesso r unde r th e leas e wa s denie dt o RD M o r AGLA D o r

tha t th e term s grante do r

denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k

o f experienc e in ai r

carg o development , togethe r wit h stat e o r federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r

circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfor th e subjec t property . 23-10 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with FedE x an dUPS , tha t AGLA D objecte dt o th e absenc e o f afirst righ t o f refusa l (FROR ) unde r

th e lease , that

Alask aDOT&P Fgav e t o FedE x an dUP S more preferentia l FRO Rright s unde r th e leas e unde r

substantiall y similar

circumstance s i n REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 7 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U l

- I > U L U l o z s < H U l E Z E u . U J O u C M " i 5
^ i " .i ^ X 3 O) 2 O S » S Z - < i n < l U ^ ,j , C C 3 C O S m z < CM U l 3 .- s U J > « N < T U

J 2

- E p O
. . o E < U l X 3 E Z o 5 o o Z £ X X t • o a . C O 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 whic h FRO Rright s wer e denie dt o RD M o r AGLA D o r

tha t th e term s grante do r

denie d t o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k

o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r

carg o development , togethe r

wit h stat e o r federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r

circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfo r th e subjec t

property . 23-11 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with UPS , tha t

AGLA D objecte dt o th e absenc e o f ahardstan dpreferentia l us e righ t unde r th e lease , tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fgav e t o UP S ahardstan dpreferentia l us e righ t unde r th e leas e unde r

substantiall y similar

circumstance s i n whic h ahardstan d preferentia l us e righ t

wa s denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D o r

tha t th e term s grante do r denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f a performanc e bond , lac k

o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r carg o development , togethe r with stat e o r

federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfo r th e subjec t

property . 23-12 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with FedEx , tha t

AGLA D objecte dt o th e absenc e o f arigh t t o ren t o r purchas e hardstand s fo

r alo w rat e unde r

th e lease , tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fgav e FedE x arigh t t o ren t o r purchas e hardstand s fo

r alo w rat e unde r

th e leas e unde r

substantiall y simila

r circumstance s i n whic h arigh t t o ren t o r purchas e hardstand s for

alo w rat e wa s denie d t o RD M o r

AGLA D o r

tha t th e term s grante do r

denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstrate d financial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r

carg o development , togethe r wit h stat e o r federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r

circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman d fo r th e subjec t

property . 23-13 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d wit h FedE x o r

CargoPort

that AGLA D objecte dt o th e absenc e o f arigh t t o hav e Alask a DOT&P Fconstruc t

o r maintai n ataxiwa y fo

r AGLAD' s us e withou t

charg e that

Alask a DOT&P Fgav e FedE x o r CargoPort

arigh t t o hav e Alask aDOT&P Fconstruc t o r maintai n ataxiwa y fo

r FedEx' s o r

CargoPort' s us e withou t charg e unde r

substantiall y REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 8 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4_ l < E U l 5 0

- I > - U . Ul

^ ^ KU l E X E u . U J O Q U J o o o C M
Z > < i n < U J ^

<j , E 3 C

O ( O C O Z < C M Ulg^ P < 5 U l 2 . o E < U l X 3 E Z o o o o
o 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 13 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 simila

r circumstance s i n whic h arigh t t o hav e Alask aDOT&P Fconstruc t o r maintai n a taxiway for

AGLAD' s us e withou t

charg e wa s denie dt o RD M o r AGLA D o r

tha t th e term s grante do r

denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r

carg o development , togethe r with stat e o r

federal law s or

regulation s an dothe r circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfor th e subjec t

property . 23-14 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with FedE x tha t

AGLA D objecte dt o th e absenc e o f arigh t t o hav e Alask aDOT&P F pay fo r sit e improvement s o n AGLA D lease , tha t Alask aDOT&P Fgav e FedE x arigh t t o hav e Alask aDOT&P Fpay fo r sit e improvement s o n FedEx' s leas e unde r substantiall y similar

circumstance s i n whic h arigh t t o hav e Alask aDOT&P Fpa y fo r sit e improvement s o n AGLAD' s leas e wa s denie dt o RD M o r AGLAD , o r

that th e term s grante do r

denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie dby AGLAD' s lac k o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n ai r

carg o development , togethe r with stat e o r

federal law s o r

regulation s an dothe r circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfor th e subjec t

property . 23-15
. RD M ha s no t

show n that

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D wa s similarl y situate d with FedE x tha t

AGLA D objecte dt o th e absenc e o f arigh t t o hav e ahangar

buil t fo r it withou t charge , that

Alask aDOT&P Fgav e FedE x arigh t t o hav e ahangar

buil t fo r i t withou t charg e unde r

substantiall y similar

circumstance s i n whic h arigh t t o hav e a hangar buil t for it withou t charg e o n AGLAD' s leas e wa s denie dt o RD M o r AGLAD , or that th e term s grante do r

denie dt o RD M o r

AGLA D wer e no t

reasonabl y justifie db y AGLAD' s lac k

o f aperformanc e bond , lac k o f demonstrate dfinancial responsibility , an dlac k o f experienc e i n air

carg o development , togethe r with stat e o r

federal law s o r regulation s an dothe r

circumstance s suc h a s competitiv e deman dfor th e subjec t property . 23-16 . RD M ha s no t

show n that

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D ha s an y righ t

fo r Alask a DOT&P Fno t

t o undercu t

AGLAD' s pricin g fo

r tenan t us e o f lan do r facilities , tha

t Alask aDOT&P Fdi dundercu t AGLAD' s pricin g fo

r tenan t us e o f lan do r facilities , an d REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 29 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4<

E U l

- J > - U . Ul

I - U l E Z 0 . u . U J O ° U 1 o u . u . o 

### s

C M I I I •» " Z - < i n < U l ^ ^ E 3 (/ ) < D ffl Z < C M "J^^i ^ < 3 < - g < X U l Si
. E f O
. . O E < U l X 3 E Z o o o o Z iZ : X X < ^ O 0
. 3

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

2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 that Alask aDOT&PF' s undercuttin g o f AGLAD' s pricin g for

tenan t us e o f lan do r facilitie s wa s no t

reasonabl y justified
. 23-17 . RD M ha s no t

show n tha t

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D ha s any righ t

for Alask a DOT&P Fno t

t o obtai n possessio n o f

th e wetlan dfill permi t

issue db y th e U.S . Arm y Corp s o f Engineer s with respec t

t o th e former

AGLA D leas e sit e o r

fo r RD M o r AGLA D t o b e compensate dfor investmen t

in obtainin g th e permit
. Sectio n 3 : FA A Case s

RD M present s quotation s fromaserie s o f FA A Part

1 6 determinations , al l o f whic h ma y mak e fair

statement s o f

FA A requirements , bu t

non e o f whic h are applicabl e t o th e fact s o f

thi s case. ^ Effectively , al l th e case s demonstrat e i s that i t i s possibl e t o violat e th e sponso r gran t assurance s b y applyin g unjustifiabl y different rule s on similarl y situate daeronautica l users . Wit h that truism , Alask aDOT&P Fentirel y agrees . Non e o f

th e cases , however , support s th e notio n tha t differin g treatmen t

o f non-aeronautica l user s i s aviolation
. Non e support s th e notio n tha t treatmen t o f anon aeronautica l use r

differentl y fro man aeronautica l use r i s aviolation
. Non e support s th e notio n tha t

differen t treatmen t

base do n difference s betwee n th e natur e o f us e or use r (develope r

o r ai r carrier) , o r

th e contractin g circumstance s (competitiv e bi dor negotiated ) i s aviolation
. Non e support s th e notio n that differen t times , regulatory

^ RD M fail s t o not e whethe r it i s quotin g adirector' s decisio n o r afinal decision , o r t o referenc e th e dat e o f

th e decision
. Thoug h that ma y b e somewha t

excusabl e for

a non-attorne y author , th e citatio n in th e decision s themselve s demonstrat e appropriat e citatio n style
. Nevertheless , Alask aDOT&P Fha s gamel y worke dt o figure out th e correc t references
. In additio n t o incomplet e citations , th e quote dpassage s includ e numerou s quotatio n errors , missin g o r erroneou s pag e citations , an dRD M quote s numerou s passage s with n o apparen t possibl e applicabilit y whatsoever , a s i f the y wer e copie dfro msom e diges t

o f Part 1 6 decision s advers e t o sponsors . See , e.g. , Repl y a t pag e 32 , numbere dparagraph s 13. c an dd ; page s 34-35 , numbere dparagraph s 15. c an df throug h h ; pag e 35 , numbere dparagrap h 18.a . In an y event , Alask aDOT&P Fha s reviewe dan ddistinguishe s eac h cite dcase . REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 0 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4§ i

IJ U C M Z U l U . U J < U l O ^ E 3

. E mz w t 2 3 ^ ^ E £ t - U l S fc E z S E ^ (> • U . Z u . Q U J 3 

# i i o < i n ^ ° > < < M U J 2J . O . . < U l E Z o o X X u a . 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 changes , financial circumstance s o f th e user s o r

o f th e airport

mus t al l b e ignore di n favo r o f identica l term s an dtreatment . A s note dbelo w in Grayso n v . DeKal b County , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-1 3 (Director' s Determination ) (February 1 , 2006 ) it wa s RDM' s burde n t o prov e no t jus t that ther e wer e similaritie s amon g severa l tenant s an ddifference s in thei r leas e term s an dtreatment , bu t

als o tha t ther e wer e n o difference s amon g th e tenant s o r th e circumstance s that

justifie dth e differin g term s an dtreatments . Rathe r tha n meetin g it s burde n t o disprov e th e difference s outline db y Alask aDOT&P Fi n it s Answe r at Exhibi t A , Paragrap h 18 , RD M effectivel y concede s th e differences , sayin g the y "may o r may no t b e true. " [RDM's ] Repl y t o TSAI A Answe r ("Reply" ) a

t page s 15-16 , numbere d paragrap h 18 . Rathe r

than meetin g it s burde n t o sho w wh y thos e difference s canno t justif y differin g treatmen t

RD M ignore s FA A preceden t b y simpl y assertin g tha

t the y d o no t matter . Thoug h RD M present s n o argumen t t o sugges t

an y applicabilit y o f

th e case s it cite s t o th e presen t

matter , Alask aDOT&P Fwil l briefl y addres s eac h i n th e orde r cite d b y RDM : Leonar dCardinals ' Pilo t Sho p v . Chesapeak e Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

16-01

- 0 6 (Director' s Determination)(Octobe r 22 , 2002) , (cite din Repl y at pag e 29 , numbere d paragrap h 38) . Th e complainan t

i n Leonar dwa s afixedbas e operato r (FBO ) a t on e airport

tha t sough t t o performspecia l aviatio n service s a t anothe r airport
. A n FB O i s define da s "a n individua l o r

firmoperatin g a

t a n airpor t an dprovidin g genera l aircraf t service s suc h a s maintenance , storage , groun dan dflight instruction
. [FA A Orde r

5190.6A , Airport Complianc e Requirements , Appendi x 51. " Leonar da t 1 , footnot e 1 . A s aspecialize d aviatio n servic e operato r

(SASO ) a

t th e responden t

airport , th e Complainan t sough t t o operat e acustome r

pick-u p sit e fo

r it s aircraf

t renta l services
. Id
. a t

3 . Th e responden t airport , howeve r

offere donl y temporar y facilitie s t o th e ne w entrant—an dthe n onl y

REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 1 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l tf ( 3 X 

### 3> ^ O S E I

- 5 " 5 9 U l s < g f - U l 0 E X £ E u . z lU O < Q u i o C M t i n m « o ; 2

. < i n 3 ( O 1 0 Z < C M U l - I c ~ S'^- g T U J 2> . E < U l 5 E z o o o 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 after pressur e fromth e FA A Easter n Region—thoug h an existin g FB O occupie dth e respondent' s entir e termina l withou t alease
. Id
. a

t 33 . Obviou s difference s fromthi s cas e includ e th e fac t that RD M i s adeveloper , no t a n aeronauti c servic e provider , RD M complain s abou t treatmen t

o f AGLAD , als o a develope r tha t ha s neve r

provide daeronauti c services
. Thos e ar e distinction s enoug h t o mak e th e cas e inapplicable
. Indeed , RD M fundamentall y complain s no t that th e requirement s wer e illega l o r eve n unreasonable , bu t

onl y that the y wer e les s advantageou s than provide dt o othe r tenants . In addition , RD M complains , fo r th e mos t part , abou t

enforcemen t

o f requirement s t o whic h RD M authorize dAGLA D t o agree , an dt o whic h AGLAD , unlik e Cardinals ' Pilo t Shop , agree da s amatte r o f contract . I n Leonar dCardinals ' Pilo t Shop , th e FA A note dtha t "[t]h e pivota l questio n i s whethe r th e qualification s an dstandard s require db y th e Airport Authorit y ar e reasonabl e an drelevant. " Id
. a t 38 . Althoug h i n tha t

case , thos e standard s wer e foun d no t reasonabl e an drelevant , Alask aDOT&PF' s requirement s fo r AGLA D wer e reasonabl y relate dt o ensurin g tha t airport propert y woul dneithe r

b e tie du p in possessio n o f

a n entity incapabl e o f

developin g it , o r

gettin g it partiall y develope dan d the n lef t i n an incomplet e an dunprotecte dstate . Alask aDOT&P Fha s show n tha t AGLA D wa s no t

similarl y situate dwit

h compariso n tenant s FedE x an dUP S inasmuc h a s the y wer e an dar e Signatory Airlines , a specia l clas s o f

aeronautica l users . Neithe r wa s AGLA D similarl y situate dwit h CargoPort , whic h undertoo k it s developmen t

subjec t t o a$1 0 millio n guarantee , an d complete di t

fimely before gettin g aserie s o f modes t accommodation s o n asubsequen t adjacen t lease
. Skydanc e Helicopters , Inc . v . Sedon aOak-Cree k Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

16

- 02-0 2 (Director' s Determination)(Marc h 7 , 2003 ) (cite din Repl y a t pag e 30 , numbere d paragrap h 10) . I n Skydance , th e complainan t conducte da

n aeronautica l activity providin g helicopte r sightseein g tour s for

th e public , an dwa s denie dalong-termleas e unles s REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 2 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l

- J > U , UJ

^ ^ I - U l E Z E u . U J O Q u i u U L C M

_t i n _ , Z 3 <J > S o w « " 5 Z
. < i n < U l ^

^ E 3 ( O ( D m z < C M u l
_ l ^- s U l > rf f T w < - g < . rU l £
. E £ O
. . 0 E < U l 1 5 E Z o o o o z a ! I I < . o Q

. 

## l \ C O o 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 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 subjec t

t o arevocabl e licens e fo r it s aeronautica l operation. O f course , Skydanc e i s immediatel y distinguishabl e fromth e presen t matte r base dth e aeronautica l focu s o f Skydance , unlik e RDM' s rea l estat e developmen t focus
. AGLA D ha dn o complain t abou t th e termo f

it s lease : 55-years. Neithe r di dAlask aDOT&P Frequir e alimitin g two-year licens e a s ha dSedon aOak-Cree k Airport Authority
. A s als o note dwith respec t t o Cardinals ' Pilo t

Shop , RD M als o complains , for th e mos t part , abou t

enforcemen t

o f requirement s t o whic h RD M authorize dAGLA D t o agree , an dt o whic h AGLAD , unlik e Skydanc e Helicopters , agree da s amatte r o f contract . Unlik e th e presen t

case , in whic h RD M demand s tha t AGLA D shoul dhav e bee n treate didenticall y t o othe r tenants—whic h Alask aDOT&P Fha s demonstrate dt o hav e bee n dissimilarl y situated—i n Skydanc e th e complain t wa s tha t it ha dbee n treate dth e sam e a s othe r

tenant s despit e importan t difference s in propose duse . Se e Skydanc e at 28 : In fact , considerin g tha t th e Complainant' s propose d30-yea r leas e differe dfromth e circumstance s o f th e othe r aeronautica l operators ' us e o f th e airport , th e Authorit y woul db e require dt o trea t th e Complainant

somewha t differentl y i n orde r

maintai n acces s t o th e airpor t o n fair an d reasonabl e terms . Alask aDOT&P Fha s show n tha t AGLA D wa s no t

similarl y situate dwit

h compariso n tenant s FedE x an dUP S inasmuc h a s the y wer e an dar e Signator y Airlines , a specia l clas s o f

aeronautica l users . Neithe r wa s AGLA D similarl y situate dwit h CargoPort , whic h undertoo k it s developmen t

subjec t t o a$1 0 millio n guarantee , an d complete dit

timel y befor e gettin g aserie s o f modes t accommodation s o n asubsequen t adjacen t leas e fo r ramp development
. T o an y exten t that AGLA D an dCargoPor

t may b e considere daeronauti c users , Alask aDOT&P Fwa s obligate dt o treat AGLA D somewha t differentl y fromCargoPort i n ligh t o f th e difference s betwee n th e projects
. Still , a s note db y CargoPort i n commen t

letter s include di n th e recor da t [ANC

AGLAD-032 9 - 0332] , AGLA D sought , an dsometime s received , leniencie s and REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 3 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l

- J > U . U J U l P S < I

- U J C X E u . U J O OU J u Z - < i n E 3 C O t o mz < C M "JS^ P « < - g < T U l S E f O
. . o E < Ul Z 3 E Z O o o o Z u l Z X < ^ O a S z ^ < u . o 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 13 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 advantage s CargoPor t neve r received , withou t

th e bon dtha t

ha dbeen require do f CargoPort

o r completio n o f

successfu l developmen t

a s CargoPor t

ha daccomplishe d unde r ADA-3081 6 befor e receivin g modes t accommodation s onl y fo r follow-o n leas e ADA-3104 3 fo

r constructio n o f

jus t hardstands
. Marty n v . Por t

ofAnacortes , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-0 3 (Apri l 14 , 2003 ) (Director' s Determination ) (cite di n Repl y a t pag e 31 , numbere dparagrap h 1 1 an dagai n a t pag e 37 , numbere dparagrap h 28. ) RDM' s citatio n t o Martyn , i s similarl y misplaced
. Tha t cas e foun dstandin g (1 ) unde r th e lowe r

standar dspeciall y crafte db y th e FA A with respec t t o revenu e diversio n (se e Marty n pp . 46-47) , (2 ) fo r a n applican t

wh o wa s a

n aeronautica l use r

wh o sought , i n part , t o construc t

ahangar fo r hi s own us e an dthat

o f hi s privat e investor s (se e Marty n p . 1 2 an d23 ) an d(3 ) whos e direc t an drepeate deffort s t o leas e airport lan d wer e denie d(se e Marty n p . 25) , an d(4 ) wher e th e FA A foun dtha t th e evidenc e demonstrate dth e airport

sponsor' s objectio n wa s base do n adesir e t o limi t growt h o f th e airport

(se e Marty n p . 32) . Thi s cas e present s non e o f thos e circumstances
. Skydiv e Pari s Inc . v . Henr y County , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-06 , (Director' s Determination ) (January 20 , 2006 ) (erroneousl y cite da s FA A Docke t 16-02-0 6 a

t pag e 32 , numbere dparagrap h 1 2 o f Reply ) Skydiv e Paris , relate s t o th e aeronauti c activity o f parachut e jumping , no t

t o rea l estat e developmen t

o f ai r carg o facilities
. Alask aDOT&P Fha s n o disput e wit h th e cite dreferenc e t o FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Par

4-8(b) , "Parachut e Jumping, " bu t it ha s n o applicatio n t o thi s case . Brow n Transport . Co . v . Cit y o f Holland , FA A Docke t

No . 16-05-0 9 (Director' s Determination ) (Marc h 1 , 2006 ) (cite din Repl y a t pag e 32 , numbere dparagrap h 13) , Brow n Transpor t

relate s t o requirement s fo r self-fuelin g o n an FB O lease , an aeronautica l issu e no t

presente din th e curren t

matter . Th e complainan t in that case , a n aircraf t owner , operato r

an dself-fueler , challenge dfuelin g rule s an dregulation s tha t self-fuelin g ( arigh t

specificall y protecte dunde r gran t assuranc e 22(f) ) require dno t onl y REBUTTAL RDM , LL C v . AN C Pag e 3 4 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l < o

- I > U
. U l U J P E < H U l E X E u . UJ O S

Z - < i n C C 3 t o S r n Z < C

M UJS^ P « t ? ui" e o c f o . . 0 C C < Ul 1 5 E Z y o o o Z U
. Z X < . O Q
. 5 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 $1,000,00 0 pe r

tan k contaminatio n insuranc e an d$5,000,00 0 i n liability insurance , bu t als o an additiona l $ 1,000,00 0 secure dpersona l guarantee . Tha t combinatio n o f requirements , wa s hel dt o b e unreasonabl e unde r th e circumstances
. In th e presen t

case , o n th e othe r

hand , RD M i s alan ddeveloper , membe r o f a lan ddevelopmen t

LLC . Alask aDOT&P Freduce dth e requirement s o n AGLA D relativ e t o CargoPort

b y no t requirin g acompletio n bon dthat AGLA D coul dno t provide
. Th e lac k

o f abon dlef

t Alask aDOT&P Fsubjec t t o ris k no t onl y o f th e propert y sittin g undeveloped , bu t als o o f havin g aprojec t

ge t half-starte dan dthen b e lef t in adug-u p an derosiv e condition
. I t i s interestin g tha t

RD M quotes , withou t

discussion , th e followin g FA A observatio n i n Brown : "th e City can' t appl y requirement s t o on e party an dignor e th e ris k o f th e activitie s o f

othe r similarl y situate dparties. " Id
. a t 21 . I t wa s precisel y t o avoi dunfairl y ignorin g th e ris k o f AGLAD' s questionabl e an dunprove n financial capacity—a n issu e tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fha dmanage da s t o CargoPort b y requirin g a $1 0 millio n guarante e tha t AGLA D coul dno t

provide—tha t

compelle dAlask a DOT&P Ft o impos e financing deadline s in th e lease , an dultimatel y dra w aline
. Grayso n v . DeKal b County ^ FA A Docke t No . 16-05-1 3 (Director' s Determination ) (February 1 , 2006 ) (cite di n Repl y a t pag e 32 , numbere dparagrap h 14 ) In Grayson , aPart

1 6 complain t

wa s filedb y "a n airport

patro n wh o lease s spac e an dbase s hi s aircraf

t a t [th e County's ] airport, " an dwh o was , thu s "a n aeronautica l user " o f th e airport
. Grayso n a

t 1,2 . That

aeronautica l use r

wa s als o "th e proponen t

o f aspecifi c aeronautica l developmen t a t PD K for th e inten t

o f persona l and/o r commercia l aeronautica l use. " Id
. at 2 . Th e airport

operato r (th e County ) ha ddenie da leas e t o th e complainin g aeronautica l use r eve n thoug h th e leas e ha dbee n finalizedan d recommende dfor

approva l b y staff

, th e County ha ddenie dth e sam e leas e fo r th e sam e parce l 1 7 month s later , an dtoo k n o positiv e actio n towar ddevelopmen t o f availabl e lan da t th e Airport

for severa l years . Se e Grayso n a t 12-13 . Ther e i s n o factua l similarity t o thi s matter . REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 5 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l S S

- I > U
. U l U J P s < h

- U l E Z E u . U J O u o o C M ^ 3 ffi a O (O < » ° z .. r < " ? < ^ ^ d > E 3 C O S D O Z < C M U l ^ ^ ^ U l > 3 h
. < J . U l Z . E f O . . 0 a : < U

l 1 3 E z o o O o Z u . X X < ^ O E $ z

. - < n o 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 Th e first

Grayso n passag e quote db y RD M i s no t afinding i n b y th e Director , bu t merel y languag e fromareport b y th e FAA' s Atlant aAirport s Distric t Office
. Se e Repl y at pag e 32 , numbere dparagrap h 14.a . RDM' s secon dGrayso n quotatio n i s acombinatio n o f afootnot e an dtex t

from FA A Orde r

5190.6A , notin g an airpor t sponsor' s "obligatio n t o mak e availabl e suitabl e area s o r spac e o n reasonabl e term s t o thos e wh o ar e willin g an dotherwis e qualifie dt o offe r flight service s t o th e publi c .. . o r support servic e (i.e
. fuel , storage , ti e down , flight lin e maintenance , etc. ) t o aircraf t operators. " Se e Repl y a t pag e 32-33 , numbere d paragrap h 14.b
. In thi s case , however , AGLA D propose donl y t o develo p facilitie s fo r leasin g t o variou s servic e companie s an dt o ai r carrier s t o provid e service s t o themselves
. RD M goe s o n t o quot e passage s notin g th e complainant' s burde n o f proo f t o sho w preferentia l treatmen t o f anothe r similarl y situate dparty , bu t passe s ove r

th e FAA' s determinatio n that th e Grayso n recor dwa s inadequat e t o support suc h afinding. Compare Repl y at

pag e 33 , numbere dparagraph s 14. dan de , an dGrayso n at 11 . That finding i s virtuall y th e sol e similarity betwee n Grayso n an dth e presen t case . Eve n i f RD M o r AGLA D wer e deeme daeronautica l users , ye t wer e the y no t

similarl y situate d wit h FedEx , UP S o r

CargoPort

fo r al l o f th e reason s se t

ou t in Paragrap h 1 8 o f

Exhibi t A t o Alask aDOT&PF' s Answer . RD M effectivel y concede s thos e distinctions , bu t argue s tha t

the y don' t

matter . Tha t

argumen t

i s jus t plai n wrong , a s Grayso n extensiv e othe r FA A cas e la w ampl y demonstrate
. Finally, RD M quote s languag e noting , correctly , tha t "[p]ursuin g leas e terms , plans , o r manageria l processes , that unnecessaril y limi t

th e airport' s aeronautica l utility b y restrictin g developmen t i s inconsisten t

wit h th e City' s Federa l obligations. " Se e Repl y a t pag e 33 , numbere dparagrap h 14.g , (quotin g Grayso n a t 13(incorrecfl y identifie da s 14)) . Bu t

Grayso n involve daflat denia l o f aleas e fo

r "n o objectiv e reason. " Grayso n at

15
. In thi s case , Alask aDOT&P Fben t ove r backwar dt o allo w AGLA D t o develo p o n ANC , agreein g t o aleas e withou t aperformanc e bon do r

initia l proo f o f financial capacity , an dallowin g AGLA D t o us e million s o f dollar s worth o f REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 6 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l
U . U j 4 O 5 E 1

- S " z2u i s < 2 I

- U l o C X £ E u . Z LU O < Q u i o g C M U l ^ ~ ff °

—" > m 3 < " g « " ?

- < i n 3 C O l O Z < C M (J J - J S T g < S I U l a H « •• C C < U l 3 E Z 2 ? g

. - < 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 wetland s credit s secure db y Alask aDOT&P Fa t it s ow n cost , an dthre e time s b y supplement , an deve n mor e time s les s formally , extendin g o relaxin g leas e requirement s an ddeadlines
. Othe r tha n th e discussio n tha t

th e FA A wil l no t

findunjus t

economi c discriminatio n wher e th e Complainan t ha s faile dt o prov e th e similarity o f it s situatio n t o an aeronauti c use r

treate dpreferentially , Grayso n ha s n o applicatio n t o thi s case . Centennia l Expres s Airline s v . Arapaho e Count y Pub
. Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t Nos . 16-98-05 , 13-94-25 , 13-95-03 , (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n an dOrder ) (February 18 , 1999 ) (cite di n Repl y a

t pag e 34 , numbere dparagrap h 15)
. Centennia l Expres s deal s with an airport operator' s tota l ba n o n schedule d passenge r service , clearl y acor e aeronauti c us e no t a t issu e in th e presen t

matter , an d clearl y an issu e th e FA A ha dgreat interes t i n reachin g throug h libera l applicatio n o f th e principle s o f

standing
. Indeed , becaus e th e FA A ha dfoun daviolatio n early-on , b y th e tim e o f th e final agenc y decisio n wa s prosecutin g th e matte r i n it s ow n name , effectivel y renderin g th e standin g issu e moo t a s t o Mr . Kehmeie r

a s ashareholde r

o f Centennia l Express , an dth e discussio n concernin g that issu e administrativ e dicta
. Se e Centennia l Expres s a

t 9-10 . Thos e differences , plu s that fac t tha t Centennia l Expres s wa s originall y fileda s aPart 1 3 complain t

unde r an apparentl y different

standin g standar dbefor e Part

1 6 cam e int o existence , se e Centennia l Expres s a t 8 , footnote 7 , full y distinguishe s that

cas e fromthi s matter . Ther e i s every reaso n t o appl y th e standin g rule s strictl y i n thi s matte r brough t b y areal estat e develope r

that hel dles s tha n one-thir dinteres t in anothe r

real estat e develope r tha t faile dt o satisf

y airport leas e requirement s t o whic h i t ha dagree da s a matte r o f contract . Thi s cas e shoul db e dismisse ddu e t o RDM' s lac k o f standing
. Unite dAeria l Advertising , Inc . v . Count y o f Suffol k Bd
. ofComm'rs , FA A Docke t No . 16-99-18 , (Director' s Determination ) (May 8 , 2000 ) (cite di n Repl y at pag e 35 , numbere dparagrap h 16) . Unite dAeria l Advertisin g involve deffectiv e gran t o f exclusiv e right s by an unjustifie drequiremen t

fo r hangar renta l fo r th e aeronautica l activity o f aeria l banne r REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 7 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l
U
. U J S O S S 5 2 Ul KU l o < I

- o E u . z lU O 1 ° U I o c* i 3 " > S w " 2 "J' 2 A 3 U S Z < C M s y - J c - ? U l £ KO
. . ff < U l 3 E Z

. - < 2

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 towing
. Thos e issue s hav e nothin g t o d o with th e presen t case . Indeed , languag e cite d i n RDM's ] Repl y t o TSAI A Answe r a t pag e 35 , numbere dparagrap h 16.d , demonstrate s wh y th e exclusive right s clai mi s wholl y inapplicabl e t o RDM : "FA A Orde r 5190.6 A define s an exclusiv e righ t t o mean-"an y exclusive righ t t o us e th e airport fo r conductin g an y particula r aeronautica l activity requirin g operatio n o f th e aircraft. " Unite dAeria l Advertisin g a t 1 5 (quotin g FA A Orde r

5190.6A , para . 3-2d ) (emphasi s added)
. In thi s case , RD M make s n o complain t abou t restriction s on a

n aeronautica l activity requirin g operatio n o f a n aircraft
. Moor e v . Sumne r

Count y Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-07-1 6 (February 27 , 2009 ) (Director' s Determination , p . 16 ) (cite di n Repl y a t pag e 35 , numbere dparagrap h 17) . Moor e considere dwhethe r th e airport

sponsor' s minimu mstandard s unjustl y discriminate dagains t

apropose daircraf

t maintenanc e an drepai r

business
. Neithe r RD M no r AGLA D propose dt o operat e an aircraf t maintenanc e o r

repai r business
. Th e passag e quote db y RD M refer s t o a200 7 FA A Advisory Circular tha t update dth e aeronauti c activity definitio n quote di n Unite dAeria l Advertising
. A C 150/5190-6 , Exclusiv e Right s an dMinimu mStandard s fo r Commercia l Aeronautica l Activities : Advisor y Circular , Januar y 4 , 200 7 a t 8 (Appendi x 1 . Definitio n 1.1.a ) define s aeronautica l activity a s follows : An y activity that

involves , make s possible , o r i s require dfor

th e operatio n o f aircraf t o r that contribute s t o o r

i s require dfor

th e safet y o f suc h operations
. Activitie s withi n thi s definition , commonl y conducte do n airports , include , bu t

ar e no t limite dto , th e following : genera l an d corporat e aviation , ai r

tax i an dcharte r

operations , schedule dan d nonschedule dai r

carrie r operations , pilo t

training , aircraf

t renta l an d sightseeing , aeria l photography , cro p dusting , aeria l advertisin g an d surveying , aircraf

t sale s an dservices , aircraf t storage , sal e o f

aviatio n petroleu mproducts , repai r an dmaintenanc e o f

aircraft , sal e o f

aircraf t parts , parachut e o r

ultraligh t activities , an dany othe r

activitie s that , becaus e o f

thei r direc t relationshi p t o th e operatio n o f aircraft , can appropriatel y b e regarde da s aeronautica l activities
. Activities , suc h a s mode l aircraf

t an dmode l rocke t

operations , ar e no t

aeronautica l activities
. REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 8 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l O z E I - £ " o z2u j 5E S KU l o E Z § E u . Z UJ O < Qu i o < o < » ^ ' < i n Ul ^ ^ • ^ TSi ^ 3 C O t o Z < C M U l Z J c^
. > < t ; ? ui a p ( 3
. . ( T < U l 3 E Z £ 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 2 4 2 5 2 6 Althoug h AGLA D propose dt o construc t facilitie s o n whic h aircraf t coul dtax i an da t whic h the y coul db e refuele dan dserviced , AGLA D di dno t actuall y propos e t o performan y o f

thos e services
. AGLA D ha s neve r performe dan y aeronautica l servic e anywher e for

anyone . Neithe r

ha s RD M o r

an y othe r membe r o f AGLAD . AGLA D propose dt o develo p facilitie s t o b e lease dt o arang e o f aeronautica l servic e provider s an dt o ai r carrier s wher e th e carrier s coul dreceiv e thos e service s fromth e othe r tenant s o r servic e themselves
. Eve n i f ther e wa s an y possibilit y tha t AGLA D migh t

hav e woun dup providin g som e aeronautica l service s hadit successfull y complete dit s "development, " ther e i s n o doub t that it s busines s mode l wa s tha t o f area l estat e developer
. I n al l o f it s "pre

constructio n phase " activities , AGLA D worke dt o sig n "leases, " no t servic e contracts . Care y v . Afton-Lincol n Count y Mun . Airpor t Join t Power s Bd. , FA A Docke t No . 16

- 06-0 6 (Director' s Determination ) (Januar y 19 , 2007 ) (cite di n Repl y at pag e 35 , numbere dparagrap h 18) . Care y involve dcomplain t that , amon g othe r

things , minimu moperationa l standard s t o b e impose do n ne w businesse s propose dt o provid e fuelin g an dothe r FB O services , bu t

no t o n apre-existin g FBO , wer e unjustl y economicall y discriminatory
. Interestingly , th e FA A mad e th e poin t tha t it i s no t unjustl y discriminatory t o updat e requirements , an dt o impos e the mo n ne w venture s bu t no t "retroactivel y t o action s tha t hav e alread y bee n completed, " bu t di dfindtha t

operationa l requirement s shoul dappl y t o al l similar

operators . Se e Care y a

t 37 ; see , also , Maxi mUnited , LL C v . Boar do f County Com

m'rs , FA A Docke t

No . 16-01-1 0 (Apri l 14 , 2003 ) (Director' s Determination , p . 22) . In th e presen t case , AGLA D di dno t

propos e t o offe

r FB O services , an dther e i s n o allegatio n tha t Alask aDOT&P Fimpose dunreasonabl e operationa l minimu mstandard s no t impose do n others
. Al l o f th e allegation s relat e t o term s for development
. Becaus e RD M is , an dAGLA D hope dt o be , area l estat e developer , rea l estat e development , no t aeronauti c service s i s wha t thi s matte r

i s al l about
. REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 3 9 o f 42 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l
I

- s • " 5 2 U l ?'* E H U l o E Z £ <l- o E u . Z lU O < Qu i u I L U . o o o C M U l

, _ O ) o r< i n v t
... . 3 o > 2 ( O u T 2 3 C O £ Z < C M U l
_ |
_ ? Uf a p o . . K< U l 3 E Z O O O U L X X 

# i V o 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 No t

onl y i s Care y readil y distinguishabl e fro mth e presen t cas e becaus e i t involve s aeronauti c users , whic h AGLA D wa s not , becaus e i t involve dminimu m operationa l standards , whic h thi s matte r doe s not , bu t

als o becaus e al l th e issue s i n thi s cas e compar e update dbusines s practice s unde r curren t regulation s with thos e tha t applie dt o long-complete dproject s began frommor e tha n te n t o mor e than 2 0 year s ago , befor e ther e th e Stat e o f

Alask aadopte dit s curren t internationa l airport

regulations
. Atlanti c Helicopters , Inc/Chesapeak e Ba y Helicopter s v . Monro e County, FA A Docke t No . 16-07-1 2 (Decembe r 3 , 2008)(cite di n Repl y at pag e 36 , numbere d paragrap h 19) . Alask aDOT&P Ffoun dth e abov e case , bu t i t wa s no t th e sourc e o f

th e passage s quote dbeneath it , whic h Alask aDOT&P Fwa s no t abl e t o find. Th e passage s RD M quote s a t pag e 3 6 o f

th e Reply , paragrap h 19.b , whateve r it s source , reflect s applicatio n o f "similarl y situated " analysis
. RD M ha s describe dAGLAD' s similaritie s with th e othe r "developments, " becaus e it s focu s i s s o limite dt o "development " that it fail s eve n t o recogniz e th e tota l dis-similarit y betwee n AGLA D a s adevelope r o f multi-tenan t leas e facilitie s an dFedE x an dUP S a s Signatory Ai r Carrier s constructin g facilitie s ow n us e for thei r ow n us e t o mee t

thei r ow n needs
. That developmen t

focu s reveal s that

AGLA D may no t

b e acor e aeronauti c use r a t al l suc h tha t

rea l estat e developer , RDM , i s entitle dt o hav e it s complain t considere d unde r Par t 16 . Bu t eve n i f th e FA A wer e t o dee mAGLAD' s propose ddevelopmen t a propose daeronauti c use , ther e woul dye t b e n o possibilit y o f

it bein g foun dsimilarl y situate dt o FedE x o r

UPS . That

woul dleav e onl y CargoPor t for th e FA A eve n t o consider
. Bu t

RD M allege dsimilarit y betwee n AGLA D an dCargoPort onl y i n amos t genera l wa y t o begi n with , ha s no t bolstere dthos e allegation s with an y evidenc e o r analysis , an dha s no w effectivel y concede dth e distinction s th e State o f Alask a identifie din it s Answe r

a t Exhibi t A . paragrap h 18.B . Se e Repl y a t page s 16 , numbere d paragrap h 18.B,l- 8 (admittin g tha t th e note ddistinction s "ma y o r ma y no t b e true") .

REBUTTA L RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 4 0 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4< E U l $ 5 < a

- I >

U . U l

I

- U l S t • " E U . U l O Q U I u o o C M

E 3 C O S o g Z < C

M < I U l a Es c > . . O O C < U l X 3 E Z o o o o Z U L X X < ^ o o . 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 Maxi mUnited , LL C v . Boar do f Count y Comm'rs , FA A Docke t No . 16-01-1 0 (Apri l 14 , 2003 ) (Director' s Determination , p . 46 ) (cite di n Repl y a t pag e 36 , numbere d paragrap h 19) . RD M relie s o n Maxim' s discussio n tha t agreemen t

t o contrac t

term s doe s no t alway s bar

acomplain t

concernin g thos e terms . Bu t in Maxim , th e issu e wa s no t jus t that th e complainan t

wa s subjec t

t o differin g standards , bu t that thos e standard s ha dth e effec t o f preventin g th e complainan t fro mself-fueling , i n direc t violatio n o f

Assuranc e 22(f)
. Self-fuelin g b y a

n aircraf t owne r i s acor e aeronauti c functio n that i s no t a t issu e i n th e presen t

case . In addition , Maxi mgoe s o n t o not e tha t differin g treatmen t

o f different tenant s ove r tim e i s no t

i n an do f itsel f improper " [N] o Federa l obligatio n require s asponso r t o forg o improve dbusines s practice s o r efficien t allocatio n o f

airport propert y i n orde r

t o avoi ddifferin g term s an dcondition s amon g user s o f

th e airport
. Th e airport

sponso r ca n pursu e agreement s that

mor e nearl y serv e th e changin g interest s o f th e publi c wit

h th e mor e recen t

leaseholders
. Id
. a t 2 2 (citin g Wilso n Ai r

Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb y County Airport Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-99-1 0 (Augus t

30 , 2001)(Fina l Decisio n an dOrder)
. DATE D thi s 29 * day o f

December , 200 9 a

t Anchorage , Alaska
. DANIE L S . SULLIVA N ATTORNE Y GENERA L By : '^^^^/< f /Joh n L . Steine r / Senio r Assistan t Attorne y General AB A No . 871110 8

REBUTTAL RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 4 1 o f 4 2 Docket No . 16-09-1 4