### SPIEGE L& MCDIARMI D LL P

GEORG E SPIEGE L (iei»-igg7 ) ROBER TC . MCDIARMI D ROBER TAJABLO N JAME S N . HORWOO O TRANCEStrTRANCI S DANIE L I . DAVIDSO N THOMA S C TRAUGE R JOH N J . CORBET T CYNTHI AS . BOGORA O SCOT TH STRAUS S LIS AG . OOWDE N PETE R J HOPKIN S DAVI D E . POMPE R WILLIA M S . HUAN G PABL O O . NOESC H TILLMA N L . LA Y LARISS AA . SHAMRA J 133 3 NE W HAMPSHIR E AVENUE , N W WASHINGTON , D C 2003 6 WWW.SPIEGELMCD.CO M Telephon e 202.879.400 0 Facsimil e 202.393.286 6 E-mai l INF0QSPIEGELMCD.CO M Direc t Ola ! 202.879.204 8 EMAI L PABL0.NUESCH0SPIEGELMCD.CO M ASSOCIATE S STEPHE N C . PEARSO N ELAIN E C . LIPPMAN N J.S . GEBHAR T nUB EN_D

__GJ3M_E_

Z REBECC AJ . BALDWI N SHARO NCOLEMA N VIVIA NW . CHUM O F COUNSE L MARGARE TA . McGOLDRIC K ME G MEISE R JEFFRE YA . SCHWAR Z BARR YM . SMOLE R GLORI ATRISTAN I LE E C . WHIT E 

### Septembe r

25 , 200 8 Vi aHan dDeliver y Mr . Randal l S . Fiert z Directo r Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s (AGO ) Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Re : Lette r

fromComplainant s date dSeptembe r 18,200 8 Northwes t

Airlines , Inc . e t

al . v . Indianapoli s Airpor t Authorit y e t

al . FA A Docke t

16-07-0 4 Dear Mr . Fiertz : 5 3 1 o r n l O J 3 zi.T;2 .

; ^ 

### o Q Q izzr ^ C O 

### Th e Indianapoli s Airport

Authority ("Authority" ) respectfull y respond s t o th e Complainants ' lette r

t o yo u date dSeptembe r

18 , 2008 , i n whic hthe y see k clarificatio n o f

th e followin g statemen t

i n th e Determination : [i] f th e Complainant s agre e t o exten dth e Leas e Agreemen t an dno t amen di t t o recogniz e th e Credit , [t]hi s matte r woul dcontinu e t o b e acontrac t disput e an dPart

1 6 woul dnot

b e th e appropriat e venue . Determinatio n a

t 33 . Complainant s argu e tha t th e statemen t

mus t mea n th e opposit e o f

wha t i t says , an dthat

th e Complainant s shoul db e abl e t o rais e suc hfuture issue s i n fixture Part 1 6 investigations . Th e Authorit y respectfull y request s that yo u refrai n fromattemptin g t o expoun d th e Determinatio n a s suggeste db y th e Complainants . At th e outse t

th e Authorit y note s that , whil e th e Determinatio n correctl y conclude dtha t th e issue s presente db y th e Complain t wer e unrip e for

agenc y review , i t

als o mad e factual conclusion s an dinterpretation s o f law an dagenc y polic y that wer e base do n hypothetica l o rMr . Randal l S . Fiert z

Septembe r

25 , 200 8 Tap ^ potentia l future events . Becaus e som e o f thos e conclusion s migh t

adversel y impac t

th e Authorit y i f

applie di n futur

e cases , th e Authorit y sough t timel y revie w o f

th e Determinatio n b y th e Associat e Administrator . It woul db e inappropriat e for yo u t o clarif

y th e Determinatio n whil e a n administrativ e appea l i s pendin g becaus e an y further issuance s b y th e Director , particularl y after

an appeal ha s bee n filed, woul dris k confusin g th e issue s o n appea l an d delayin g th e ultimat e resolutio n o f th e case . Likewise , th e Authorit y believe s that yo u shoul drefrai n fromspeculatin g abou t futur e potentia l events an dfromannouncin g ho w yo u "could " o r "would " rul e i f

presente dwit hsuc ha cas e i n th e future , o r

eve n whethe r

suc hacas e woul db e subjec t t o FA A jurisdictio n unde r Part 16 . A s clearl y state di n th e Determination , th e rol e o f FA A i n aPart

1 6 investigatio n i s t o determin e "whethe r

a n airport sponso r i s currentl y i n complianc e withth e applicabl e federal obligations. " Determinatio n a t 1 3 (emphasis i n original) . I t woul db e unreasonabl e for yo u t o speculat e further

abou t th e yet-unknov mresult s o f th e ongoin g negotiation s betwee n th e Authorit y an dth e Signatory Airlines , particularl y i n acas e suc ha s this , wher e th e Complainant s appear t o b e usin g thei r

purporte dclarificatio n reques t t o leverag e thei r

positio n vis-a-vi s th e othe r Signatory Airline s an dth e Authority . A s yo u state di n th e Determinatio n (a t 29) , "[i] t i s paramoun t

that th e Complainant s an dth e Respondent s understan dtha t th e FA A doe s not arbitrat e o r

mediat e negotiation s throug haformal Part 1 6 complain t

process. " Finally , th e Authorit y note s that th e premis e o f

th e Complainants ' argumen t for clarificatio n i s v^ong . A t pag e 33 , th e Determinatio n discusse s thre e potentia l future circumstances . Firs t

i t state s that , i f

Complainant s an dth e Authorit y agre e o n th e rat e treatmen t o f FedEx' s ren t

credit , ther e wil l b e n o issu e unde r th e gran t assurance s o r

th e Rate s an dCharge s Policy . Secon di t

observe s that , i f

Complainant s an dth e Authorit y d o not agre e o n ane w rat e methodolog y an dth e Authorit y impose s one , th e reasonablenes s principle s o f th e Rate s an d Charge s Polic y wil l apply . Thirdi t note s that , "[i] f

th e Complainant s agre e t o exten dth e Leas e Agreemen t

an dno t amen di t t o recogniz e th e [cjredit , [t]hi s matte r woul dcontinu e t o b e a contrac t disput e an dPart

1 6 woul dnot

b e th e appropriat e venue. " Complainant s argu e tha t suc h astatemen t

mus t assum e that

th e Authorit y continue s t o refrai n fromcalculatin g landin g fee s o n abasi s that

reflect s FedEx' s ren t

credit . But , i f

th e Authorit y refrain s fromcalculatin g landin g fee s o n abasi s that

reflect s th e ren t

credit , ther e can b e neithe r ground s t o clai maviolatio n o f th e Authority' s Federa l obligation s no r an y contrac t

dispute . Thus , th e onl y sensibl e interpretatio n i s that , i f th e Complainant s an dth e Authorit y agre e o n arat e methodolog y (b y extendin g th e curren t agreemen t

o r b y enterin g int o ane w one ) an dth e Complainant s an dth e Authorit y continu e t o hav e adisput e abou t ho w FedEx' s ren t

shoul db e treate dunde r

th e agree d methodology , suc hissue s woul db e confrac t matter s tha t

ar e no t appropriat e for

resolutio n i n a Par t 1 6 investigation .Mr . Randal l S . Fiert z

Septembe r

25 , 200 8 Pag e 3 Fo r

th e foregoin g reasons , th e Authorit y respectfull y request s that yo u refrai n from expoundin g th e meanin g o f th e Determination , an dallo w th e adminisfrativ e an djudicia l proces s i n thi s cas e t o ru n it s prope r course . Sincerely ,

Pabl o O . Niiesc h Jeffre y A . Schwar z Attorney s for

th e Respondent s c c Robert

A , Dunca n Robert E . Coh n Patric k R . Rizz i Dav e Aschenbac h Thoma s Newto n Boilin g Lorrain e B . Hallowa y Robert W . Kneisle y