< U J CN J

~ < i n • n J S »

~ t n < o

_ : < C

M 3< S 5 l u 2 . f O . . E < U J : 3 o c z O O O IJL X X 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 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSfl © FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTR A

WASHINGTON , D C 

## C E 1 ¥



# Ai m^ 

# ^ ^ LTION I AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L

LAW , AGC-60 0 ^ RDM , LLC , Complainant ,
TE D STEVEN S ANCHORAG E INTERNATIONA L AIRPORT ,

Respondent
. Docke t No . 16-09-14 ! r"' 1 C 5

.:. 5 REPL Y T O RDM' S ANSWE RT O MOTIO N T O DISMIS S Th e abov e matte r

shoul db e dismisse dwithprejudic e becaus e th e RDM , LLC , ("RDM" ) lack s standin g t o brin g an actio n unde r 1 4 C.F.R . Part

16 , an dbecaus e th e complain t

seek s revie w o f

matter s no t

prope r fo r revie w unde r

Part 16 . RDM' s "Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismiss " actuall y demonstrate s tha t th e motio n b y Respondent , State o f Alaska , Departmen t

o f Transportatio n & Publi c Facilitie s (Alask aDOT&PF) , sponso r o f th e Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t ("ANC" ) i s well-founde d an dshoul db e grante dbecaus e

A . RD M ha s n o standin g unde r Part 1 6 becaus e a s RD M ha s no t demonstrate dtha 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
. 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 Alask aDOT&P Fwithrespec t t o AGLAD . C . Contrac t

term s no t

prohibite db y law or

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 .

Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LLC V

. AN C Pag e 1 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4<

fiC 11 1

- 1 > • II , l U O f K° O M » f Z . < i n < ti j ^ a > O C 3 ( 0 u> D O Z < C M < 5 I " 2

- o c f o . . O c < t u X 3 o c Z o o o o ZLL . X X < . O Q
. 5 z ^ < C O o 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 A . RD M Lack s Aeronauti c Use r Standin g RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s an dit s Repl y t o TSAI A Answe r ("RD M Reply" ) ha s brough t int o clear

focu s a n issu e no t

readil y apparen t

fromit s origina l complaint , bu t

that ma y 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 areal estat e developer , whic hi s arguabl y no t aeronauti c us e subjec t

t o Part 1 6 a t all, ' In DeScios e v . Cit

y o f Lon g Beach , FA A Docke t No . 16-99-1 2 (February 20 , 2001 ) (Director' s Determination) , th e Directo r mad e clear

that no t every develope r o f aeronauti c facilitie s i s considere da n aeronauti c user : Establishe dFA A polic y an dprocedure s reflec t th e inheren t limitatio n o f

our gran t assuranc e jurisdictio n involvin g matter s o f unjus t economi c discriminatio n an dexclusive rights
. Specifically , th e Preambl e t o FA A Rule s fo r Airport Proceeding s explain s tha t "[njonaeronautical user s o f airport s ar e subjec t

t o th e sam e 'directl y an dsubstantiall y affected ' standar da s aeronautica l users , an dcoul dforeseeabl y hav e standin g t o file acomplain t ... . However , mos t

o f an airport' s [gran t

assurance ] obligation s ar e intende dfo

r th e benefi t

o f aeronautica l users . A complain t allegin g that

a n airport operator' s treatmen t

o f anonaeronautica l use r violate s suc hobligatio n woul db e dismisse deve n thoug h th e nonaeronautica l use r

wa s directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y th e [allegedl y violative ] practice
. Fo r example , th e assuranc e agains t unjus t discriminatio n b y a n airpor t operato r

onl y applie s t o aeronautica l users , s o acomplain t by anonaeronautica l use r

' I t i s importan t

t o not e tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fneve r

distinguishe dbetwee n AGLAD , CargoPor t

o r any othe r

lesse e or leas e applican t

base do n i t

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 that i t does , treat

al l applicant s an dtenant s fairly and , t o th e exten t similarl y situated , consistentl y in complianc e wit h4 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 . It wa s onl y RDM' s descriptio n o f itsel f an dth e AGLA D development , togethe r withth e DeScios e case , that suggeste dth e assurance s may not , strictl y speaking , appl y here
. I n any event , Alask aDOT&PF believe s i t

treate dAGLA D i n complet e complianc e withth e gran t assurance s whethe r the y appl y o r

not , an dthat

RDM' s allegation s o f disparat e treatmen t

are eithe r unfounded , o r

th e difference s wer e fully justifie db y dis-similar situations
. Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 2 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< cc U J 

# I t
U . U J ^ ? 11 1 h S < I

- l U c cX Q
. u . UJ o O u j o C M

_t i n _ X 3 o > 2 U w * ? Z
. < i n < lU ^ (j , D C 3 ( A < s a z < C

M 11 1 ^ ^ ^ U J S rf i ^ < T U J 2 . o cp o . . 0 E < U

J 1 5 o c z o o o o Z U L X X < . O Q
.
u . 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 

## ^ P

allegin g unjus t

discriminatio n by a n airpor t operato r woul db e dismissed
. Whil e th e Complainan t

appear s t o argu e tha t

h e i s a n FB O throug h th e sublease s offere db y AeroRealty an dha s standin g t o file th e instan t complaint , th e FA

A i s no t convince dtha t

alesse e o f airpor t propert y ca n b e considere da n FB O simpl y by subleasin g it s leasehol dt o privat e aeronautica l servic e provider s that , i n turn , provid e aeronautica l service s t o th e public
. FA A Orde r 5190.6 A define s afixed-base operato r (FBO ) a s a

n individua l or firmoperatin g a

t an airport

an dprovidin g genera l aircraf t services , suc h a s maintenance , storage , groun do r flight instructions , etc . (Se e Orde r

5190.6A I Appendi x 5)
. Th e definitio n clearl y indicate s tha t a n FB O provide s aeronautica l service s directl y t o th e public
. Additionally , FA A Orde r 5 1 90.6 A further

provide s tha t

"th e airport owne r i s no t obligate db y agreement s withth e Governmen t t o provid e spac e unles s th e activity offer s service s t o th e publi c or support service s actuall y neede db y thos e aircraf t operator s otherwis e entitle dt o us e th e publi c landin g areas. " (Orde r 5190.6A , par . 4-15 ) DeScios e (Director' s Determination ) at 2 4 (emphasi s added)
. AGLA D di dno t propos e t o operat e a s a

n FBO , define di

n Appendi x 5 t o former 5190.6 A a s "m . Fixed-Bas e Operato r (FBO)

- a

n individua l o r

firmoperatin g at

an airport

an dprovidin g general aircraf t service s suc h a s maintenance , storage , groun dan dflight instructions , etc. " FA A Orde r

5190.6A , Appendi x 5
. AGLA D propose donl y t o leas e t o aeronautica l servic e providers
.

I n affirmin g th e Director s Determinatio n i n DeSciose , th e Actin g Associat e Administrato r

mad e th e poin t

eve n mor e clearl y i n specificall y distinguishin g real property developer s fromaeronauti c users , an dnotin g tha t Part 1 6 i s no t availabl e t o th e former : Th e issu e o f whethe r Westlan di s adevelope r or afixedbas e operato r i s acritica l elemen t

i n thi s review
. I f

Westlan di s characterize da s adevelope r an d[th e complainant ] a s afixedbas e operator , th e tw o coul dno t b e considere dsimilarl y situate dan dth e Complainan t

coul dno t

prevai l o n aclai mo f

unjus t economi c discrimination
. I f

bothWestlan dan d[th e complainant ] ar e characterize da s developers , the y migh t b e similarl y situated , bu t woul dno t

fall unde r

th e gran t

assurance s designe dt o protec t Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LLC V

. AN C Page s o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< o c U l 

### % s << 3

- J > U . U J U J r s < t - U l C C X Q . u . U J O Q U I o o o C M U OT " ? Z . < i n < U J ^

^ E 2 (/ > 2 ) ( 0 Z < C M UJ ^ —

» UJ > rf

1-

- < I U l 2

- o c f O . . O £< U J X 5 o c Z o o o o Z L L X X < ^ O 0
. 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 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 aeronautica l users . In tha t case , a n issu e woul dhav e bee n raise d relevan t t o [th e complainant's ] standin g an dwhethe r h e woul d hav e bee n permitte dt o brin g thi s Part 1 6 complain t

forward
. Th e FAA coul drevie w thi s complain t an devaluat e allegation s o f unjus t discriminatio n unde r

th e gran t

assurance s onl y i f

bot h enterprise s were characterize da s aeronautica l an dwer e similarl y situated
. 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 dOrde r a t 27 ) (emphasi s added)
. S o i s RDM , or

fo r that matter , AGLAD , a

n aeronauti c user , o r

areal estat e develope r suc h tha t

RDM' s allegation s ar e beyon dPart 1 6 jurisdiction ? Fo r

ahin t t o th e answe r

t o tha t question , on e nee dloo k

n o further

tha n th e banne r

acros s th e botto m o f th e stationery o f

RDM' s managin g member , Debenha mProperties , LLC : "/ 4 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)
.

Lookin g further

onl y confirm s an ddrive s hom e th e conclusio n that RD M i s areal estat e develope r an dAGLA D wa s i n th e real estat e development , an dno t th e aeronautica l servic e business
. RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s refer s repeatedl y t o th e "AGLA D development." ^ See , e.g . Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s a t 1 , Sectio n 1 , an d2 , numbere dparagrap h7 (emphasi s added)
. Accordin g t o RDM' s complaint , i t appear s tha t

AGLA D wa s no t

a n aeronauti c user , bu t

area l estat e developer
. Manage db y Alask aGloba l Logistic s Airpar k Development , Inc . (emphasi s added) , AGLAD' s propose dprojec t wa s al l abou t

facilit y development , no t renderin g aeronautica l services
. Indeed , asid e fromit s propose ddevelopmen t o f lease d

• ^ Althoug h RD M refer s repeatedl y t o "AGLAD' s development, " th e photograph s Alask aDOT&P Fsubmitte dat ANC-000 2 throug h0009 sho w quit e plainl y that AGLAD/Postmark , LL C ("AGLAD" ) neve r actuall y develope danythin g on it s leasehold
. T o an y exten t that Alask aDOT&P Fquote s a n RD M referenc e or

otherwis e refer s t o "AGLAD' s development " Alask aDOT&P Frefer s t o th e propose d developmen t

an dexpressl y disclaim s any implicatio n tha t any developmen t

eve r occurre do n AGLAD' s lease dpremises
. Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 4 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< c c U l
I

- S " 5 2 U l K U J o C C T J a , u . z L U o < °U J o C M

—i n ^ = ffi 8 ( O » °

- < i n 3 V) i n Z < C M U J J — 5 U J 2 . E < U J 3 o c 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 airport

land , th e onl y "service " AGLA D appear s t o hav e intende dwa s leasin g buildin g an dramp space , a s describe da t th e outse t

o f RDM' s Complaint : Th e Developmen t AGLA D Postmark

LL C wa s developin g 4 0 acre s a t Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airport (Se e Projec t

Developmen t

Are a Map below ) that

woul dhav e consiste do f air-carg o an dlogistic s facilitie s a

t th e AGLA D sit e unde r

along-termgroun dleas e (55

- year lease)
. Th e AGLA D facilitie s woul dhav e generate drevenu e b y leasin g buildin g spac e an dprovidin g ramp parkin g position s (area s tha t allo w refueling , de-icing , etc.) , know n a s hardstands , fo r air-carg o carrie r an dmaintenanc e companies
. Complain t

a t 2 . Notably , RD M doe s no t say AGLA D planne dt o conduc t re-fuelin g o r de-icing , bu t

onl y provid e spac e wher e it s "air-carg o carrie r an dmaintenanc e compan[y] " tenant s coul dperformo r receiv e thos e services
. RDM' s complain t use s form s o f th e wor d"develop " o r

"development " mor e than 8 0 times , bu t neve r mention s "services. " Th e RD M Repl y onl y bring s th e rea l estat e developmen t natur e o f AGLAD' s ventur e int o sharpe r focus : a . "RDM' s managemen t company , Debenha mProperties , LL C own s ove r $40 M o f investmen t

rea l estat e in Alaska , Utahan dNevada. Debenha m Propertie 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 d paragrap h 5 ) (emphasi s added) ; b
. 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 constructio n a s "effort s t o court an dsig n tenants. " RD M Repl y a t 9-1 0 (numbere dparagrap h6 ) (emphasi s added) ; c . Assertio n that

"th e development " existed , eve n thoug hit remaine donl y a propose dan dplanne didea , descriptio n o f "ho w development s occur, " an ddiscussio n whethe r

"tenant s shoul dcom e t o th e lan dleas e signin g wit h thei r developments pre-leased, " an dth e "tim e neede dt o cour t an d negotiat e wit

hprospectiv e tenants. " RD M Repl y a t 1 0 (numbere d paragrap h 9 ) (emphasi s added) ; Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LLC V

. ANC Pag e 5 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< o c U J

U . U ^ O Z D C k

- S " O Z 2 U l s < 2 t - U J o < I - o Q
. U
. Z LU O < Q u i o m 5 = 2 S r< i n 3 JS » 2 (/ > ( o Z < C

M U J - J C E < U J 3 o cZ o o o U . X X 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 d
. Referenc e t o Pegasu s Aircraf t Maintenanc e a s " amajor ancho r tenan t t o AGLAD' s development. " RD M Repl y a t 1 1 (numbere dparagrap h9-10 ) (emphasi s added) ; e . Referenc e t o Cathay Pacifi c Airway s Limite da s " amajor ancho r tenan t t o AGLAD' s development. " RD M Repl y a t 1 2 (numbere dparagrap h9-8 ) (emphasi s added) ; f Compariso n o f

it s "prospectiv e project " t o "o n in whic hadevelope r control s prim e real estate, " effectivel y equatin g AGLA D t o " adeveloper " bu t withou t contro l o f

th e propert y unti l it

signe dth e lease
. RD M Repl y a t 2 0 (numbere dparagrap h19-3. J (emphasi s added)) ; g . Referenc e t o fact 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 d paragrap h 19-7.e ) (emphasi s added) ; h
. "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 tha t 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 h19- 1 l.b ) (emphasi s added)
. Althoug h AGLA D propose dt o construc t facilitie s o n whic haircraf t coul d tax 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 perfor many o f

th e aeronautica l services
. AGLA D ha s neve r performe dan y aeronautica l servic e anywher e fo r anyone . Neither , it

seems , ha s RD M or

any othe r membe r o f AGLAD . Goin g bac k

t o document s submitte di n 2004 , it i s clea r th e pas t experienc e an dfocu s wa s real estat e development
. Se e Experienc e i n Design-Buil d Project s include da s par t o f VGA' s Busines s Plan , ANC-AGLAD-010 3 a t 0106-0110 . I n th e sam e mold , th e firmthat precede dRD M i n AGLAD , Sherro n Associates , Inc. , wa s area l estat e developer
. Se e ANC-AGLAD-0118 . Tha t history fits nicel y with RDM' s observatio n tha t

"RDM' s managemen t

company , Debenha mProperties , LL C .. . specialize s in development , acquisition s an dproperty managemen t o f industrial space. " RD M Repl y a

t 2 (numbere dparagrap h5)
. 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 dservic e themselve s o r

receiv e service s fromth e othe r tenants . Nowher e in any o f it s filings doe s RD M assert , muc h les s provid e evidenc e t o prove , tha t it or AGLA D propose dt o Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 6 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< a U J 5 o

- 1 > U . Il l 

### ^ ? U J h S < H U J O C X Q
. u . U J O Q u j o S

CN J
Z
.. r< « < U l ^

d > D C 3 < n u > 0 1 Z < C

M U J ^ ^ ^ U J > ^

r . < I U l a 5 p O
. . 0 D C < U J 1 3 o c Z O o o o Z U 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 d o anythin g othe r

tha n develo p spac e t o lease
. I n al l o f it s "pre-constructio n phase " activities , AGLA D worke dt o "sig n tenants " t o "leases " no t secur e aeronautica l service s contracts . RDM' s single-minde dfocu s o n real estat e developmen t explain s wh y RD M s o adamantl y insist s that th e "AGLAD' s development " i s comparabl e t o tha t o f FedE x an dUP S "developments. " 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

AGLA D wa s a s propose ddevelope r o f multi-tenan t

leas e facilitie s fromFedE x an dUP S a s Signatory Ai r Carrier s constructin g facilitie s for thei r ow n us e t o mee t

thei r ow n needs
. Eve n i f

ther e wa s an y possibility tha t AGLA D migh t hav e woun du p providin g som e aeronautica l service s ha di t successfull y complete dit s "development, " ther e i s n o doub t tha t it s primary busines s mode l wa s that o f area l estat e developer , no t

an aeronauti c servic e provider
. Bu t eve n t o any exten t

tha t th e FA A migh t

determin e tha t

AGLA D coul d b e considere dan aeronauti c servic e provide r becaus e i t

woul dow n aeronauti c facilitie s an dpotentiall y provid e aeronautica l services , that woul dno t

mak e AGLA D similarl y situate dt o aSignatory Airline—o r t o Alask aCargoPort , LLC . CargoPort doe s no t provid e aeronauti c services
.

Alask aDOT&P Fha s previousl y stresse dth e difference s betwee n AGLA D an dCargoPort , whic hi s an experience ddevelope r o f ai r carg o facilitie s with substantia l capita l backin g developin g at AN C a t atim e when , amon g othe r things , th e ai r carg o developmen t

mode l remaine dunproven . Se e Answer , Exhibi t A , ^ 18.B . Bu t i t turn s ou t tha t even mor e importan t

t o thi s cas e i s th e fac t

that CargoPort

i s als o areal estat e an dfacilit

y developer , no t

an aeronauti c servic e provider
. Accordin g t o CargoPort' s Anchorag e manager . Ke n Lythgoe , CargoPort provide s n o aeronauti c services
. CargoPort

manage s it s facilit

y a s acommercia l propert y manager . Tenant s provid e fo

r themselve s o r

contrac t t o other s fo

r al l aeronautica l services
. Se e Affidavi t o f Kenneth J . Lythgoe , filedherewithan dnumbere da s [ANC-004 2 - 0049] .
Repl yt o RDM' s Answe rt o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 7 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< c c U l S o

- I > U
. U l
U J b s < » - U J o c X a . u . U J o Q u j o Z - < i n < UJ ! L d > D C 3 ( Ai c E D Z < C M UJS^ P < X U J £ E K« •

• O D C < U J X 5 O C z o o o o Z U L I I < . O D
. $ Z

. _< 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 slightl y paraphras e DeSciose , th e FA A can revie w RDM' s complain t an devaluat e allegation s o f unjus t discriminatio n unde r

th e gran t assurance s only if

bot h enterprise s ar e characterize da s aeronautica l an dwer e similarl y situated
. Se e FA A Docke t No . 16-99-12 , (Decembe r 13 , 2001 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r a t 27) . RDM , havin g allege donl y genera l similarity betwee n CargoPort' s location , are aan dfacilitie s an dthos e AGLA D proposed , havin g submitte dn o evidenc e tha t eithe r i s a n aeronauti c user , bu t havin g give n substantia l indicatio n that RD M an dAGLA D ar e real estat e developers , RD M ha s no t mad e th e minima l showin g necessary t o support Part 1 6 jurisdiction
. Eve n i f

RD M di dmak e suc hminima l showing , i t ha s no t presente d evidenc e sufficien t

t o carr y it s burde n o f

proof—eve n i f

Alask aDOT&P Fhadno t presente dcontrary evidence—t o sho w tha t RD M or AGLA D wa s similarl y situate dt o anothe r aeronautica l user . Se e 4 1 North7 3 West , In c v . County o f

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

18 , 2009 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , p . 28 ) (responden t bear s burde n t o sho w i t

i s similarl y situate do n anothe r FBO) . O n th e contrary , Alask a DOT&P Fha s show n tha t thi s matte r

i s al l abou t

real estat e development , rathe r the n aeronautica l us e subjec t

t o Part 16 . T o th e exten t

neithe r RD M no r

AGLA D wer e aeronautica l user s protecte db y th e gran t assurances , thi s matte r

shoul db e dismisse d becaus e RD M lack s standin g t o see k revie w o f

matter s no t

subjec t t o Part 1 6 jurisdiction
. B . RD M Lack s ^'Directl y an dSubstantiall y Affected " Standin g

In th e very first

paragrap ho f

th e sectio n o f

it s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s entitle d"Proo f

tha t RD M wa s 'directl y an dsubstantiall y affected,' " RD M allege s tha t

Alask aDOT&PF' s action s ""lea ddirectl y t o th e failure o f AGLAD' s developmen t

an dth e resultan t

loss " o f a n amoun t o f mone y o f

whic hRD M "directl y lost " aportion
. Se e Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 1 . Eve n i f

AGLA D wer e deeme d a n aeronauti c user , RDM' s ow n assertio n i s no t tha t Alask aDOT&PF' s action s "directl y an dsubstantially " affecte dRDM , a s require dunde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.2 3 bu t

that Alask aDOT&PF' s action s "lea dto " th e failure o f AGLAD' s development , whic hha da Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 8 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< c c U l S o

- J >
U
. U J U J P 5 < I

- UJ o cX D . u . U J o QU I u o o C M

_t i n _ , X 3 o > S O t o o > 2 z r< « < UJ ^ ^ D C 2 ( A u > D O Z < C M i l l
_ i ^- > < ^ U J S - o E < U J X 5 D C Z o o o o Z U L X X < . O Q
. S Z ^ < 4

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

# 9

"resultant " effec t

o n RDM . RD M effectivel y admit s that any effec t

Alask aDOT&PF' s action s ha do n RD M wa s indirect , "resultant " fromadirec t effec t o n AGLAD . RD M doe s no t mee t th e requirement s fo

r standin g unde r

Part 16 . RD M goe s o n t o admi t

t o it s les s than one-thir downershi p o f AGLAD , bu t fo r th e first time , assert s that

it i s "deeme dt o hav e a5 1 % Percentag e Interest " i n AGLA D "fo r

votin g purposes. " Se e Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s at 2 , ^ 5
. Whateve r that votin g authority migh t mean—i t

i s impossibl e t o tel l fromRDM' s selectiv e provisio n o f

onl y th e cove r

shee t an dp . 3 o f

th e AGLA D Operatin g Agreement—i t apparentl y doe s no t

giv e RD M contro l o f

AGLAD . Accordin g t o th e organizationa l document s Alask aDOT&P Ffileda s ANC-003 6 an d0040 , AGLA D i s manage db y Alask aGloba l Logistic s Airpark Development , Inc . RD M doe s no t disput e that

unde r A S 10.50.250(c) , RD M lack s authority t o ac t o n behal f

o f o r i n th e nam e o f

AGLAD ; RD M doe s no t

purpor t t o d o s o in thi s matter . Bein g eithe r unabl e o r

unwillin g t o hav e AGLA D pursu e claim s o n it s ow n behalf , RD M filedit s complain t onl y o n it s ow n behal f RD M assert s tha t it "wa s avery activ e membe r o f AGLA D . . . an d worke dclosel y with Le e Nun n an dCaro l Meyer s o n th e AGLA D Development. " An d that it "me t severa l time s withTSAIA. " Se e Repl y a t 3 ^ 9 . In reality , however , RD M admit s tha t

it wa s Debenha mProperties , LLC , ("Debenham" ) that communicate dwith airport staff
. Se e Repl y at

4 ^ 16 . Althoug hRD M assert s tha t Debenhamwa s it s managin g member , th e Octobe r 24 , 200 8 correspondenc e fromDebenham , mad e n o mentio n tha t

it wa s o n behal f

o f any entity bu t

itsel f Se e Exhibi t

C t o Repl y (firs t

tw o pages)(als o ANC-AGLAD-0198-0199) . Neithe r di da n Octobe r

29 , 200 8 emai l from Shau n Debenha ma s Vic e Presiden t o f Acquisition s an dDevelopmen t fo r Debenham , make any mentio n o f

RDM . [ANC-AGLAD-037 8 - 0380] . It wa s onl y afte

r th e serie s o f thre e meeting s with AN C staf f describe da

t p . 3 , 1 | 9 o f

th e Reply , that

a Novembe r

25 , 200 8 lette r

fro mDebenham , indicate dthat i t wa s o n behal f

o f RDM . Se e Exhibi t C t o Repl y (las t

tw o pages) .
Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LLC V

. AN C Pag e 9 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4i
. a < c c U J

- I >

u . l U
U J P 5 < H U J C C X a . u . U J o CM t " > ^ X 3 0 > S o S » ? Z
. < i n < !f j : ^ c » o c2 e n S m z < C M U J ^ .- ^ U l > « rr - < T U J £ t c £ O
. . O E < U J X 3 o c Z O o o o Z U
. X X < • o 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 24 2 5 2 6 Eve n so , a s reflecte di n th e tw o letter s fro mDebenham , thos e dealing s wer e no t o n behal f

o f AGLA D a s aholde r

o f a n AN C lease , bu t

o n behal f

o f eithe r Debenha mor

RD M a s aprospectiv e purchase r o f Alask aGlobal Logistic s Airpark Development , Inc' s majority interes t in 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 acontrollin g interes t

in a n airport tenant . Ye t

RD M make s n o allegatio n that it ha dright 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 d prospectiv e purchase r

o f acontrollin g interes t

in a n airport tenan t receive dmor e favorabl e treatmen t

fro mAlask aDOT&PF . Despit e it s assertion s o f

direc t interactio n withAN C staff , 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 dtreatmen t o f AGLAD . Althoug h i t

appear s t o b e th e cas e that RD M briefl y (fro mNovembe r 18 , 200 8 t o Decembe r

31 , 2008 ) ha dan optio n t o acquir e AGLAD , RD M chos e no t t o exercis e that option. ^ Havin g decline dit s opportunity t o tak e contro l o f AGLAD , RD M neve r steppe dint o apositio n o f sufficient

authority t o overcom e th e prudentia l reason s t o den y standin g t o an indirectl y affecte dparty .

Nevertheless , RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s goe s t o som e lengt h t o summariz e th e allegation s o f it s complaint , makin g aconclusory assertio n that Alask a DOT&PF' s failure t o provid e favorabl e treatmen t lea dt o th e failure o f

"th e AGLA D development. " Thus , eve n i f RDM' s allegation s ha dmerit , whic hthe y d o not , th e Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s jus t reinforce s that

conclusio n that

RDM' s los s woul dno t b e du e t o any direc t

effec t o f Alask aDOT&PF' s action s o n RDM , a s asserted , bu t b y th e indirec t

effec t RD M fel

t a s an investo r

a s AGLAD' s propose ddevelopmen t failed
.

^ RD M incorrectl y state s tha t Alask aDOT&P Frequire ddocumentatio n o f th e optio n before meetin g wit hRD M representatives in October , 2008 . Accordin g t o RDM' s ow n allegations , RD M me t thre e time s wit

hAN C representatives , th e las t o f whic h wa s Novembe r

17 , 2008 , se e Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s a t 2 , paragrap h7 . Th e optio n agreemen t

wa s execute dafte r

that las t meeting , o n Novembe r

18 , 2008 . Se e Exhibi t B t o Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismiss
. Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 0 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< cc U J S o

- I >
U . UJ U J P s < H Ul o cX a . u . U J o Qu j u o o C M o « » ° Z - < i n < U J !i £ ^ c c 3 U ) £ m Z < C M UJS^ P ' s 3
. s < T U J a £f a• • O K< U J X 5 KZ o o o o Z U L X X < ^ O Q
. S z

. - < n o 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 • Se e Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 3 , ^ ^ 9 an d10 . RD M ha s n o standin g t o pursu e it s claims
. RDM' s citatio n t o Marty n v . Por t o f Anacortes , FA A Docke t No . 16-02

- 0 3 (Apri l 14 , 2003 ) (Director' s Determination , p . 46 ) i s als o misplaced
. That cas e foun dstanding : (a ) unde r th e lowe r

standar dspeciall y crafte db y th e FA A wit hrespec t t o revenu e diversio n {se e Marty n pp . 46-47) ; (b ) 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 ow n us e an dthat

o f hi s privat e investor s {see Marty n p . 1 2 an d23) ; (c ) whos e direc t an drepeate deffort s t o leas e airport

lan dwer e denie d{see Marty n p . 25) ; an d(d ) wher e th e FA A foundthat th e evidenc e demonstratedth e airport sponsor' s objectio n wa s base do n adesir e t o limi t growth o f

th e airport

{see Marty n p . 32) . Thi s cas e present s non e o f thos e circumstances
.

Marty n does , however , mak e clear that th e FA A canno t

awar drestitutio n o r financial damage s o r

unde r Par t 16 . Se e supr aa

t 45-46
. Althoug hth e FA A ha s jurisdictio n t o revie w complianc e issue s whe n presente dby apart y wit hstanding , regardles s o f

relie f sought , i t

i s inappropriat e for

th e FA A t o tak e u p amatte r presente d b y a n entity onl y indirectl y affected
. Nothin g in Marty n suggest s otherwise
. Althoug h no t

cite db y RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismiss , RD M doe s quot e som e standin g languag e a t pag e 3 4 o f

th e RD M Reply , an dAlask aDOT&P F deem s it appropriat e t o distinguis hth e cite dcase : Centennia l Expres s Airline s v . Arapaho e County Pub
. Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

Nos . 16-98-05 , 13-94-25 , 13-95-03 , (February 18 , 1999 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n an dOrder)
.

Centennia l Expres s deal s witha n 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 a n issu e th e FA A hadgreat interes t i n reachin g throug hlibera 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 in 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 tha t issu e administrativ e dicta
. Se e Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LLC V

. ANC Pag e 1 1 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< o c U l

- J > U . UJ 

### 2 ^ U J h s < I

- U J o cX 0 . u . U J o Q u j o o o C M xSS g O « O ) ° Z
. < i n < U l ^ d> D C 3 e n u ) m z < C

M < T U J £ £H « . . O D C < U J X 5 D C Z O o o o Z U L X X < . ^ O Q
. S z 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 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 # Centennia l Expres s a

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

unde r a n 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 in thi s matte r brough t b y area l estat e develope r tha t hel dles s tha n one-thir dinteres t i n anothe r

rea l estat e develope r

that faile dt o satisf

y airport leas e requirement s t o whic hit hadagree d a s amatte r

o f contract . Thi s cas e shoul db e dismisse ddu e t o RDM' s lac k o f standing
. C . Contrac t

Term s No t

Prohibite dB y La w O r Gran t Assurances , Bu t

Agree d T o B y AGLA D A s A Matte r O f Contract , Ar e No t

Prope r Subject s Fo r Revie w Unde r

Par t 16 . Ther e i s n o questio n tha t Alask aDOT&P Fmus t

compl y with4 9 U.S.C. §4710 1 an dth e Sponso r Gran t Assurance s wit

hrespec t t o al l aeronautica l tenants . Alask aDOT&P Fdoe s so . No t onl y doe s RD M complai n abou t treatmen t

o f AGLA D rathe r tha n o f RDM , bu t

th e onl y way that

treatmen t

i s allege dt o b e wrongfti l i s that it wa s allegedl y les s favorabl e t o AGLA D than t o othe r tenants . Ye t

al l Alask aDOT&P F di dwa s enforc e th e term s o f th e leas e t o whic hAGLA D freely agreed
. FA A preceden t demonstrate s that

th e FA A wil l generall y no t findunjus t

discriminatio n i

n suc h circumstances
. Se e Penobsco t Ai r Services , Inc . v . Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 16 4 F.3 d713 , (1s

t Circuit , 1999) ; 4 1 North7 3 West , In c v . County o f

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

18 , 2009 ) (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , pp . 27-29) ; Moor e V . Sumne r County Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-07-16 , (February 27 , 2009 ) (Director' s Determination , p . 16)(citin g Adventur e Aviatio n v . Cit y o f La s Cruces , FA A Docke t

No . 16-01-14 , (Septembe r 15 , 2003 ) (Fina l Agenc y Decisio n an dOrder , p . 24) ; Aerodynamic s o f

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

No . 16

- 00-03 , (Jul y 21 , 2001 ) (Final Decisio n an dOrder , p . 16) .

RD M neve r

allege s that

any term s o f

AGLAD' s leas e wa s in violatio n o f an y specifi c prohibitio n or requiremen t

o f 4 9 U.S.C . § 4710 1 or

th e Sponso r

Gran t Assurances—onl y tha t

Alask aDOT&P Fha dtreate dothe r tenant s better
. Thi s Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 2 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< o c U J

- I >

U , U J U l P s < t - U J c c X a . u . U J o Q U J o \ L u . o C M
Z - < i n < ^ ^ CJ> O C 3 ( 0 £ o n Z < CM O < " g < n - U l S . D C Kt 3 •• O E < U

J X 3 D

C Z O o O O Z Li : X X < . ^ O Q . S z 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 n 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 

# ( 9 importan t distinctio n defeat s RDM' s relianc e o n Maxi mUnited , LL C v . Boar do f County Comm'rs , FA A Docke t No . 16-01-1 0 (Apri l 14 , 2003 ) (Director' s Determination , p . 46) . I n Maxim , th e issu e wa s no t jus t differin g standards , bu t standard s tha t

prevente dcomplainan t

fromself-fueling , i n direc t violatio n o f

Assuranc e 22(f)

- Indeed , Maxi mgoe s o n t o not e that differin g treatmen t

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

in 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

efficient allocatio n o f

airport property 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

hth e mor e recen t leaseholders
. Id
. a t 2 2 (citin g Wilson Ai r

Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb 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 d towar dal l competitor s withdifferent record s an dhistory withsponso 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 i n 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 . Cit y o f Farmington , FA A Docke t 16-07-0 1 (Decembe r

4 , 2007 ) (Director' s Determinatio n a t 21 ) ("Federal gran t obligation s d o no t

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

aprospectiv e tenan t

today get s th e sam e treatmen t anothe r tenan t go t in th e past." ) Alask aDOT&P Fha s pointe dou t i n ^ 1 8 o f

Exhibi t A t o Alask a DOT&PF' s Answe r

a t page s 22-27 , that

th e othe r

tenant s t o whic hRD M compare s AGLA D wer e no t

a t al l similarl y situate dwithAGLAD . Muc hha dals o change din th e

Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LLC V

. AN C Pag e 1 3 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< o c U J < «

- I > U . U l
U J t s < t - U J ocX < I Q . U . U J o ° U J u E u . O UJ K O w » ° Z
. . < i n C C 3 t o S O Q Z < C

M o 3 < s S X U l 2

- 5 K u . . O c c < U J X 3 o c Z o o o o Z u . I 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 24 2 5 2 6 airport' s circumstance s wit hrespec t t o demand , lan davailability , airport finances. Alask aDOT&P Fincorporate s ^ f 1 8 o f Exhibi t A t o it s Answe r

int o thi s Reply
. Inasmuc h a s non e o f

th e RDM' s allegation s g o t o specifi c requirement s o r prohibition s o f

4 9 U.S.C . § 4710 1 or th e Sponso r

Gran t Assurances , bu t

onl y t o comparativ e terms , th e issu e o f whethe r RD M shoul db e hear dt o objec t no w t o term s agree dt o b y AGLA D i s directl y a t issue
. Thi s poin t

bothcircle s bac k

t o th e standin g questio n (RD M objectin g t o term s agree dt o b y AGLAD ) an dth e parameter s o f FA A revie w o f term s t o whic h aparty ha s agreed
. Thus , i f a n aeronauti c user' s leas e ter mo 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 any ater mo r decisio n applie dt o any 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 even fo r aeronauti c users , "agreein g t o difference s in rights , restrictions , responsibilitie s an d rent s in 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 dfor purpose s o f

finding unjus t

economi c discrimination. " 4 1 North 7 3 West , In c v . County o f

Westchester , FA A Docke t 16-07

- 13 , (Septembe r

18 , 2009 ) (Final Decisio n an dOrder , p . 28 ) (emphasi s added)
. RD M suggest s Alask aDOT&PF' s citatio n o f 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 , p . 20 ) stoppe dshort

o f importan t

language
. Indeed , Alask aDOT&P Fneglecte dt o mentio n th e Associat e Administrator' s vie w o f th e complainan t

argumen t

tha t it s "agree[ment ] t o abid e b y [th e respondent's ] unreasonabl e an dunjustl y discriminatory term s doe s no t

prov e tha t

it consente dt o themwhe n it entere dint o th e agreement . Th e Associat e Administrato r

foundthat

argumen t

"no t convincing, " Id
. a

t 20-21 , statin g "tha t th e FA A i s obligate dt o investigat e possibl e violation s o f sponso r gran t assurance s

. . . doe s no t

obligat e th e agenc y t o findviolation s o f gran t assurance s wher e non e exis t becaus e atenan t

n o longe r

favor s th e term s o f

aleas e it ha s freely undertaken. " Id
. RD M asserts , however , that "th e City o f

Tuls awoul dhav e bee n foun d liable " regardles s o f

Roadhous e Aviation' s agreemen t t o th e term s o f

it s leas e i f Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 4 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< c c U J s £

- I > U . U J U J P S < » - U J c c X au . U l o ° U J o C M ^ 5 15S 0 o S ) o > 2 Z , < i n < U j ^ (j , D C 3 C O S o a z < C

M u-S^f ^ 05* 0 < T U J £ o c f o . . 0 D C 4 U J 1 5 O C Z O o o o Z U L X X < ^ o a S z

. - < u . 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 3 24 2 5 2 6 • # Roadhous e "ha dbee n abl e t o sho w aviolatio n o f agran t assurance. " Asid e fro

mth e fact that th e FA A ha s n o jurisdictio n t o findairport s "liable " t o tenants , th e poin t o f Roadhous e i s that

ashowin g o f

differin g term s an dtreatmen t agree dt o b y apart

y doe s not , a s arule , amoun t

t o aviolatio n o f

agran t assuranc e wher e n o specifi c prohibitio n or requiremen t

i s violated
. A s note di n Aerodynamic s o f Reading , Inc . v . Readin g Airport Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-00-0 3 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , p . 16 ) (Jul y 21 , 2001) : differin g leas e terms , alone , doe s no t constitut e evidenc e o f

unjus t economi c discrimination
. Likewise , differin g leas e terms , i n an do f themselves , ar e no t

evidenc e that

th e difference s resulte dfro m reason s that

wer e unjustl y discriminatory
. [FA A Orde r 5190.6A 7 Chapte r 4 , Sec . 4-14d(2)(a , b) ] A s require db y Part 16 , th e proponen t

o f amotion , request , o r orde r - in thi s case , th e Complainan t

- ha s th e burde n o f

proof
. . . . Therefore , it wa s incumben t

upo n th e Complainan t

t o prov e it s allegation s o f unjus t discriminatio n b y providin g evidenc e tha t similar term s an d condition s wer e requeste dan dwer e subsequentl y denie dwithou t adequat e justification
. Fo r purpose s o f

thi s motio n t o dismiss , Alask aDOT&PF' s poin t i s that RD M doe s no t mak e th e require dinitial showin g necessary eve n t o rais e agood-fait hissu e a s t o possible economi c nondiscriminatio n arisin g fromenforcemen t o f AGLAD' s leas e terms . Althoug h RD M als o assert s tha t Alask aDOT&PF' s allege d discriminatory treatmen t

extende dbeyon dth e origina l leas e terms , effectively , i t jus t point s t o Alask aDOT&PF' s enforcemen t o f thos e origina l term s rathe r tha n relaxin g o r renegotiating
. Th e onl y allegatio n th e Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s note s a s neithe r a n origina l leas e termno r

enforcemen t

o f a n origina l termi s that

Alask aDOT&P Ftol d RD M tha t

AN C coul dno t

participat e i n projec t

financing b y ownin g th e propose d AGLA D development
. RD M provide s n o credibl e evidenc e eithe r that it ever mad e suc harequest , o r

that Alask aDOT&P Fresponde din th e manne r alleged
. Wha

t i s clear , however , i s tha t

CargoPort

ha dalread y constructe dit s facilitie s before it aske d Alask aDOT&P Ft o tak e titl e fo r long-termfinancing. AGLA D neve r achieve dtha t position
. Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 5 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< oc U J

- I > U . U J
U J h E < I

- U J o c X 0 . u . U J o ( J o o C M t m _ ^ = S S O < n * ° z ; < i n < u ^ ^ c>> D C i e n t o O Z < C

N U J ^ ^ ^ u " > < fc < I U l 2 . D C ^ C 3 . . O O C < U J X 3 o c Z O O O O Z U L X X < . ^ O Q
. S z ^ < e n o 4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 CONCLUSIO N

RDM' s complain t

shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e A . RD M ha s n o standin g unde r Part 1 6 becaus e a s RD M ha s no t demonstrate dthat

eithe r RD M o r AGLA D are , or

propose dt o be , an aeronauti c use r o r provide r o f aeronauti c services
. 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 Fwit hrespec t t o AGLAD . C . Contrac t

term s no t

prohibite db y law 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 . RDM' s Answe r t o Motio n t o Dismis s present s n o fact s o r argumen t

tha t effectivel y overcom e th e abov e reason s tha t RDM' s complain t

shoul db e dismisse dwith prejudice
. Alask aDOT&P Frespectfull y request s tha t th e abov e matte r

b e s o dismissed
. DATE D thi s 29^

^ da y o f December , 200 9 a

t Anchorage , Alaska
. DANIE LS . SULLIVA N ATTORNE Y GENERA L By : Jon n L . Steine r senio r Assistan t Attorne y General 'AB A No . 871110 8

Reply t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 6 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< o c U J

- J > U
. U J U J P 2 < I - U J c c X < t Q
. u . U J O °U J o o o C M U i '

-

—• " .- .
c c 3 ( 0 <

o m z < C

M U J J ^ ^ U J > < N
. < I U J a S ^ 2 • • 0 o c < U I 1 3 o c Z O o o o ^ ! r T — X X U O 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 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 • Certificat e O f

Servic e I hereb y certif

y that o n Decembe r

29 , 2009 , I hav e thi s da y serve dth e foregoin g REPL Y T O RDM' s ANSWE RT O MOTIO N T O DISMIS S o n th e followin g person s at

th e followin g addresses : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Attn. : FA A Par t

1 6 Airport

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

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

9950 3
via : n han ddeliver y n faxe d H maile d

Joh n L . Steine r Senio r Assistan t Attorne y Genera l Attorrte y General' s Offic e Attorney s fo

r Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airport

Repl y t o RDM' s Answe r

t o Motio n t o Dismis s RDM , LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 7 o f 1 7 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4