RDM, LLC v. Ted Stevens Anchorage Int'l Airport -- No. 16-09-14 -- No. FAA-2010-0189
Director's Determination (06/07/2011) [Determination No.231].
Author:
Fiertz, Randall S., Director
Complainant(s):
RDM, LLC
Respondent(s):
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport|Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Airport(s):
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC)
Holding:
Dismissing complaint.
Abstract:
Complainant, RDM, LLC, alleged that Respondent, the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, as sponsor of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, had given more favorable lease terms and treatment to certain competitors, in violation of Grant Assurances 22 and 23. The Director found Respondent to be in compliance with its federal obligations.|Standing:|Respondent argued that Complainant did not have standing to file a Part 16 Complaint because it did not have a direct relationship with Respondent; instead, it was a member of AGLAD Postmark, LLC, which had a long-term ground lease with Respondent. Complainant’s alleged Federal obligation violations pertained to Respondent’s treatment of AGLAD, not Complainant. The Director ruled that Complainant’s ownership interest in AGLAD was sufficient to grant it standing to file the Complaint. (p. 18).|Similarly Situated:|Respondent did not violate Grant Assurance 22 by offering lease terms to Complainant that were different from those offered to other entities operating at the Airport because Complainant was not similarly situated to the others. Two of the three were airlines or cargo operators, whereas Complainant was a real estate developer with the intent to construct and lease cargo facilities to other entities. (p. 21). The third did not have a similar “level of investment” in the Airport, and the businesses were otherwise dissimilar. (p. 21).|Grant Assurance 23:|Complainant argued that Respondent’s refusal to grant it a right of first refusal on a particular piece of land constituted a violation of Grant Assurance 23. The Director ruled that, to the contrary, it is “[g]ranting options or preferences on future airport lease sites to a single service provider” that “may be construed as intent to grant an exclusive right” and “must generally be avoided.” (p. 36). Accordingly, Respondent’s actions were proper.
Index Terms:
Denial of access|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Land lease|Similarly situated|Standing|Unjust economic discrimination