Served June 30, 1995
LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT | Docket 50176 RATES PROCEEDING |
The Department of Transportation, under 49 U.S.C. 47129(c), has issued a final decision determining that the increased landing fees charged at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) are unreasonable insofar as those fees include a rental cost for the airfield and apron land based on the land's estimated fair market value. Order 95-6-36 (June 30, 1995). Since the landing fees paid by the airlines have been higher than justified by the airport's costs, we have determined further that the City of Los Angeles must make refunds of the excess amount to sixteen airlines: Air Canada, Air New Zealand, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, American Trans Air, America West Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Mexicana Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Trans World Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, USAir, and Varig Brazilian Airlines (collectively the Complainants). These airlines filed a timely complaint with the Department of Transportation against the City of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles Department of Airports, and the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners (collectively the City) asking us to determine whether the increased landing fees charged at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) were unreasonable under the expedited procedures established by section 113 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-305 (August 23, 1994) (the Authorization Act), codified as 49 U.S.C. 47129. The Complainants had argued that the increased LAX landing fees were unreasonable and otherwise unlawful under 49 U.S.C. 47107 and 49 U.S.C. 40116.
In addition, in our final decision we determined that the City should make refunds to all of the airline parties to the December 1993 standstill agreement between the City, the Air Transport Association, the International Air Transport Association, and the airlines listed on Appendix A to that agreement.
We are, however, unable to determine from the record the precise amount of the landing fee that must be refunded by the City. The Complainants have calculated that portion of the fee to be approximately $0.25 per thousand pounds of landed weight. The City disputes this calculation on the basis of the record before us. We believe that the record does not provide enough data to determine with certainty that the Complainants' calculation is correct. Rather than declare that the City must make refunds in the amount claimed by them, we wish to give the City an opportunity to submit more detailed data on this question.
In order to carry out Congress' direction to direct the payment of refunds or credits when a fee is found unreasonable, we have concluded that we should determine the amount of the fee that must be refunded to the airlines entitled to refunds. Our decision to undertake this calculation of the specific amount due is consistent with the statutory deadlines, since we have issued a final decision on the reasonableness of the LAX landing fees within the 120-day period prescribed by 49 U.S.C. 47129.
We therefore direct the City by July 7 to show cause why we should not establish $0.25 as the amount of the refund. If the City wishes to dispute that amount, the City should submit information to support its position that the amount of the refund should be less than $0.25. The Complainants may then file a response to the City's submission by July 14, and the City may file a reply by July 17. The parties' submissions should focus on the issue of the amount of the refund due the Complainants, that is, whether it should be $0.25 per thousand pounds of landed weight or a smaller figure. The parties' briefs should not address the underlying legal determinations in our order and instead should be limited to the calculation issue.
In addition, the statute provides that refunds should be made with interest. We assume that the proper rate in this case would be the rate set by the parties' standstill agreement. That agreement provides that the rate is the federal judgment rate, calculated as currently set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1961.
We are not providing the carriers filing follow-on complaints an opportunity to file comments on the City's submission, just as those carriers did not file evidence on the merits of the dispute over the reasonableness of the LAX fees. Order 95-4- 5 (April 3, 1995) at 20. Given the short period of time allowed by the statute for the payment of refunds, we would have difficulty meeting the statutory schedule if we accepted pleadings from airline parties other than the Complainants. Our final decision will affect the follow-on carriers entitled to refunds under the standstill agreement with the City, since we have declared that the City should refund to them the unreasonable portion of the landing fees. However, the Complainants have the same interests as the follow-on carriers insofar as the issue to be addressed here is concerned, the amount of the refund due the carriers, and so the Complainants should adequately represent the follow-on carriers' position on that issue.
We intend to issue an order establishing the exact amount due before the end of the thirty-day period set by Congress for the payment of refunds or credits.
ACCORDINGLY:
PATRICK V. MURPHY Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs(SEAL)