# o

ULSaDODartmOn t o f Assisia m secretar y' • ' • • , • ( I A i !vi'i'20 0 Ne w Jerse yAv e , S E TiYir^atlo n • i " C ."Tf^A T (T-^^^-^-^ion , D C 2059 0 Offic e o f th e Secretar y o f Transportatio n i j s :' 1 A 'J : 9 0 Jul y 20 , 201 1 Joann e W . Youn g Davi dM . Kirstei n Counse l for

Petitioner s Kirstei n an dYoun g 175 0 K Street , N.W. , Suit e 20 0 Washingto n D.C . 2000 6 Dea r Ms . Youn g an dMr . Kirstein : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r

lette r date dJul y 6 , 201 1 o n behal f o f Spiri t Airlines , Inc . ("Spirit" ) an dAllegian t

Ai r LL C ("Allegiant" ) (collectivel y "Petitioners" ) requestin g that th e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n (th e "Department " o r "DOT" ) postpon e o r

stay th e effectiv e dat e o f it s final rul e enhancin g airlin e passenge r protections . Enhancin g Airlin e Passenge r Protections , 7 6 Fed . Reg . 23,11 0 (Apr . 25 , 2011) , pendin g judicia l revie w o f variou s provision s i n thi s regulation b y th e Unite dState s Court o f Appeal s for

th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircuit . O n Jun e 1 5 an d16 , 2011 , respectively , Allegian t an dSpiri t

sough t judicia l revie w o f

this rule . A s a n initia l matter , th e Departmen t note s that

othe r intereste dparties , wh o hav e no t filed petition s for

review , hav e requeste dthat th e Departmen t

exten dth e effectiv e dat e o f th e final rule , o r certai n provision s o f

th e fina l rule . Upo n revie w o f

thos e requests , th e Departmen t ha s decide dt o exten dth e effectiv e dat e o f certai n provision s o f

th e fina l rule , includin g th e fiv e provision s Petitioner s challeng e here , t o Januar y 24 , 2012 . Th e Department' s decisio n t o exten d th e effectiv e dat e o f

thos e provision s wil l appear shortl y i n th e rulemakin g docket , DOT' s website , an dwil l b e subsequentl y publishe di n th e Federa l Register . Becaus e th e Departmen t i s extendin g th e effectiv e dat e o f th e provision s Petitioner s challeng e i n thi s matter , asta y i s no t warrante dunde r

applicabl e law . Nonetheless , th e Departmen t ha s give n carefu l consideratio n t o you r request, bu t

ha s conclude dthat

ther e i s n o basi s for

grantin g astay . Th e Department' s final rul e o n enhancin g airlin e passenge r protection s contain s man y ne w requirement s t o improv e th e ai r trave l enviroimien t

for consumers , expandin g upo n th e passenge r right s include di

n it s firs t consume r

rulemaking . Th e rul e (1 ) increase s th e numbe r o f carrier s tha t ar e require dt o adop t

tarma c delay contingenc y plan s an dth e airport s a t whic h the y mus t adher e t o th e plan' s terms ; (2 ) increase s th e numbe r o f carrier s that

ar e require dt o report

tarma c delay informatio n t o th e Department ; (3 ) expand s th e grou p o f carrier s that

ar e require dt o adopt , follow , an daudi t

custome r servic e plan s an destablishe s minimu mstandard s for th e subject s al l carrier s mus t

cove r i n suc h plans ; (4 ) add s carrier s t o thos e require dt o includ e thei r contingenc y plan s an dcustome r

servic e plan s o n thei r

websites ; (5 ) increase s th e numbe r o f carrier s tha tmus t

respon dt o consume r

complaints ; (6 ) enhance s protection s afforde dpassenger s i n oversale s situations , includin g increasin g th e maximu mdenie dboardin g compensatio n airline s mus t pa y t o passenger s bumpe dfromflights; (7 ) strengthens , clarifie s an dcodifie s th e Department' s enforcemen t

policie s concernin g au : transportatio n pric e advertisin g practices ; (8 ) require s carrier s t o notif

y consumer s o f

optiona l fee s relate dt o ai r transportatio n an do f

increase s i n baggag e fees ; (9 ) prohibit s post-purchas e pric e increases ; (10 ) require s carrier s t o provid e passenger s timel y notic e o f flight statu s change s suc h a s delays an dcancellations ; an d(11 ) prohibit s carrier s fro mimposin g unfai r contrac t o f carriag e choice-of-foru mprovisions . Onl y thi s Departmen t

ca n adop t

consumer-protectio n regulation s t o protec t airlin e passenger s a s state s ar e preempte dfro mregulatin g i n this area ' an dth e Federa l Trad e Commissio n (FTC ) Ac t b y it s ow n term s canno t

b e enforce dagains t

U.S . an dforeig n ai r

carriers . Further , n o privat e right o f actio n exist s for

airlin e consumer s t o enforc e th e pertinen t provision s o f

Titl e 4 9 i n th e courts . Th e Petitioner s assert

tha t th e rul e unlawfully : (1 ) end s th e practic e o f permittin g seller s o f

ai r transportatio n t o exclud e governmen t taxe s an dfee s fro mth e advertise dprice ; (2 ) prohibit s th e sal e o f nonrefimdabl e ticket s b y requirin g airline s t o hol dreservation s a t th e quote dfare withou t paymen t o r cance l withou t

penalt y for

a t leas t twenty-fou r

hour s after

th e reservatio n i s mad e if th e reservatio n i s mad e on e wee k o r mor e prio r

t o aflight's departure ; (3 ) prohibit s pos t purchas e pric e increases , includin g increases i n th e pric e o f ancillary product s an dservices , after th e initial ticke t sale ; (4 ) require s baggag e fee s b e disclose do n e-ticke t confirmations ; an d(5 ) mandate s notificatio n o f

flight schedul e changes . Th e entir e rul e i s schedule dt o tak e effec t o n Augus t

23 , 2011 , excep t

for th e provision s relate dt o full fare advertisin g whic h wer e t o becom e effectiv e o n Octobe r 24 , 2011 . However , a s note dabove , th e Departmen t ha s decide dt o exten dth e effectiv e dat e o f th e full fare advertisin g provisions , a s wel l a s th e othe r provision s Petitioner s challeng e alon g wit h certai n othe r

provisions , t o Januar y 24 , 2012 . Th e Departmen t

ha s th e authorit y t o postpon e th e effectiv e dat e o f rule s whe n i t

"find s Justic e s o requires. " 5 U.S.C . § 705 . Th e factor s t o b e considere di n determinin g whethe r apostponemen t o r sta y i s warrante dare : (1 ) th e likelihoo dthat th e party seekin g th e sta y wil l prevai l o n th e merits ; (2 ) th e likelihoo dtha t th e movin g party wil l b e irreparabl y harme dabsen t astay ; (3 ) th e prospect that other s wil l b e harme dif

astay i s granted ; an d(4 ) th e publi c interes t u i grantin g th e stay . See , e.g. , CS X Transp. . In c v . Williams , 40 6 F.3 d667 , 67 0 (D.C . 2005) ; Washingto n Metro . Are aTransi t

Commissio n v . Holida y Tours , Inc. , 55 9 F.2 d841 , 84 3 (D.C . Cir . 1977) . A stay i s considere d"a n extraordinar y remed y tha t shouldb e grante donl y whe n th e part y seekin g relief , b y aclear showing , carrie s th e burde n o f persuasion. " Cobel l v

. Norton , 39 1 F.3 d251 , 25 8 (D.C . Cir . 2(X)4) . W e appl y thes e four criteri ai n evaluatm g areques t t o DO T for

asta y o f aDO T final actio n pendin g judicia l review . W e hav e considere dth e argument s mad e i n you r sta y reques t an dconclude dthat

yo u hav e no t

demonstrate dthat

asta y i s warrante di n thi s instance . I . Petitioner s Ar e No t Likel y T o Succee dO n Th e Merits . Petitioner s conten dthat

areviewin g court

i s likel y t o se t

asid e variou s provision s o f th e Department' s final rul e o n enhancin g ahlin e passenge r protection s becaus e the y ar e (1 ) contrar y 4 9 U.S.C . 4171 3 ("..States ma y no t enac t o r enforc e alaw, regulation, o

r othe r provisio n havin g th e forc e an deffec t o f la w relate dt o aprice , route , o

r servic e o f a n ai r carrier...'*) , se

e Morales v

. Trans Worl

dAirline , 50

4 U.S . 374 , lI2S.Ct.2031 , lI9L.Ed.2 d157(1992) .t o th e purpos e an dspiri t o f th e Airlin e Deregulatio n Act ; (2 ) arbitrar y an dcapriciou s o r no t i n complianc e with procedure s require db y la w a s th e Departmen t faile dt o mak e arationa l connectio n betwee n th e fact s foimdan dth e choic e made ; (3 ) i n violatio n o f th e Administrativ e Procedur e Act' s notic e an dcommen t requirements ; an d(4 ) contrar y t o ai r carrie r corrmiercia l fre e speec h right s a s protecte db y th e Firs t Amendment . However , th e carrier s provid e n o rea l evidenc e t o support

thei r claims . Full-Far e Advertisin g Rul e Petitioner s conten dthat

th e full-fare advertisin g rul e i s defectiv e becaus e i t violate s th e Petitioners ' commercia l fre e speec h right s protecte db y th e Firs t Amendment . Th e Petitioner s als o challeng e a s arbitrary an dcapriciou s th e Department' s chang e i n it s enforcemen t polic y regardin g pric e advertising , whic h previousl y permitte dcarrier s t o quot e advertise dbas e fare s separatel y fro mnon-a dvalore mgovenimen t impose dtaxe s an dfee s collecte do n ape r passenge r basis . DO T disagree s with Petitioners * allegations . Th e Firs t Amendmen t

doe s no t exten dt o commercia l speec h that doe s no t "accuratel y informth e publi c abou t

lawfu l activity " o r

i s "mor e likel y t o deceiv e th e publi c tha n t o informit. " Centra l Hudso n Ga s & Elec . Co . v. Publi c Service Comm' n ofN.Y. , 44 7 U.S . 557 , 56 6 (1980) . Whe n commercia l speec h concern s alawfu l activity an di s no t misleading , th e Departmen t may impos e restriction s o n i t

onl y whe n it s interes t

i n regulatin g speec h i s substantial , th e regulatio n directl y advances th e govenmienta l interes t asserted , an dth e regulation i s no t mor e extensiv e tha n i s necessar y t o serv e that

interest . Id . Spirit' s an dAllegiant* s contentio n tha t it s Firs t Amendmen t

rights ar e violate dappear s t o b e basedo n it s mistake n belie f tha t th e Departmen t

ha s no t establishe dthroug h evidenc e i n th e recor dtha t

fare advertisin g that

exclude s governmen t

taxe s an dfee s i s misleadmg . Thi s i s no t th e case . A s w e explaine di n respondin g t o comment s i n th e final rule , w e hav e receive d complaint s fro mconsumer s regardin g fare advertisin g "som e o f whic h specificall y mentio n feelin g deceive dwhe n the y ar e no t quote dth e fiill pric e t o b e pai dafter a n initial inquiry. " 7 6 Fed . Reg . 23110 , 2314 3 (Apr.25 , 2011) . W e als o note ddiat "comment s fromindividua l commenter s an dperson s participatin g i n Regulatio n Roo msho w consumer s fee l deceive dwhe n th e tota l price , includin g taxe s an dfees , i s no t quote dt o the mafte

r a n initia l fare mquiry. " Id . In addition , w e explaine dtha t consumer s nee dafull pictur e o f th e tota l pric e t o b e pai di n orde r t o compar e fare s an drouting s a s "carrier s an donlin e trave l agencie s hav e starte dt o offe r mor e complicate drouting s with multipl e connection s i n orde r t o provid e th e 'lowest ' airfar e t o consumers " an dthat

"with thes e change s i n routings , taxe s an dfee s ca n increas e an dbecom e a significan t

portio n o f

th e pric e t o b e pai db y consumers. " Id . Further , th e rulemakin g recor d makes i t clear that "i n recen t

years , carrier s ar e increasingl y unbundlin g th e cos t o f ai r travel , whic h furthe r

obscure s th e tota l far e t o b e pai db y th e consumer. " Id . Th e Departmen t believe s tha t no t requirin g tha t

th e advertise dpric e includ e al l mandator y fee s includin g governmen t taxe s an dfees ^ whe n combine dwit h th e increasingl y commo n practic e o f imbundlin g th e cos t

o f ai r

^ Nothin

g i n th e curren t regulatio n prohibit s carrier s frominformin

g th e publi c o f th e taxe s an dfee s th e governmen t impose s o n ai r travel . Thes

e taxe s an dfees , whic

h hav e proliferate

di n numbe r an dincrease di n amoun t assesse dove r th e years , ma y b e state dseparatel y o r throug h link s o r "pop-ups " o

n websites tha

t displa y th e tota l price .trave l makes i t difficul t if no t impossibl e for

a n ordinar y perso n viewin g a n advertisemen t t o determin e th e total amoun t t o b e pai dfor

th e transportation . W e als o disput e th e clai mb y th e Petitioner s tha t th e prohibitio n o n th e practic e o f excludin g governmen t

taxe s an dfee s i s arbitrar y an dcapriciou s because , accordin g t o thes e carriers , nothin g i n th e rulemakin g recor dsupport s areversa l of polic y reliedo n b y th e airlin e industry whic h th e Departmen t

reaffirme di n 2006 . Petitioners * contention s ar e no t accurate . Th e Departmen t

propose dt o en dth e practic e o f permittin g seller s t o exclud e governmen t taxe s an d fee s fro mth e advertise dpric e becaus e o f concer n tha t

"i n man y case s consimier s ar e no t easil y abl e t o determin e th e tota l cos t o f ai r transportatio n service s o r ar e deceive dregardin g th e tru e price. " 7 5 Fed . Reg . 32318 , 3232 7 (Jun e 8 , 2010) . Th e Departmen t wa s als o concerne dtha t "[gjive n technologica l iimovation s an dne w method s o f communication , carrier s an dticke t agents ar e findin g ne w an dcreativ e way s t o advertis e airfares , som e o f whic h circumven t

th e spiri t if no t th e lette r o f th e full-pric e advertisin g rul e an dDepartmen t enforcemen t

policy.' * Id . A revie w o f

th e enforcemen t

order s issue db y th e Departmen t demonstrate s this point , tha t is , that th e landscap e relatin g t o airfar e advertisin g ha s change dsinc e 200 6 whe n th e Departmen t withdre w anotic e o f

propose drulemakin g ("NPRM'* ) i n whic h i t considere deliminatin g th e taxe s an dfee s exception . Fro m2(X) 1 t o 2(X)6 , th e Departmen t issue d5 6 enforcemen t

order s relatin g t o advertising , with assesse dpenaltie s o f $1,877,(X)0 . Thi s i s contraste dwith th e pas t thre e an dahal f

year s (200 7 throug h Jul y 11 , 2011) , durin g whic h th e Departmen t ha s issue d5 2 advertisin g order s with assesse dpenaltie s totalin g $2,656,(X)0 . Th e increas e i n enforcemen t order s concernin g advertisin g i s relate dt o th e technologica l innovation s mentione di n th e NPRM , includin g th e increase dus e o f th e Interne t

an dothe r

mean s use dfor

searchin g for airfares." * I

n 2006 , tw o o f

di e advertisin g order s issue db y th e Enforcemen t Offic e deal t

wit h Interne t advertising . Tha t

numbe r ha s steadil y increase dove r th e las t thre e years : i

n 2(X)7 , fom

* order s deal t

with interne t

advertising ; i n 2(X)8 , te n orders ; i n 2009 , eigh t orders ; i n 2010 , sixtee n orders ; and . s o fa

r i n 2011 , twelv e orders . With th e adven t o f mobil e technology , Twitter , Facebook , an dothe r

method s t o advertis e fares , ther e i s a n eve n greate r

likelihoo dthat

carrier s an dticke t agents wil l findne w an dcreative , an di n som e case s deceptive , way s t o advertis e airfare s furthe r

circumventin g th e Department' s enforcemen t policy . In additio n t o th e reason s mentione dabov e for changin g th e Department' s pric e advertisin g policy , th e Department' s regulator y evaluatio n explain s that consumer s ar e likel y t o benefi t i n severa l way s fro marequiremen t that th e pric e advertise dinclud e govenmien t taxe s an dfees . "Th e first benefi t i s th e tim e save dfo r

thos e consumer s beginnin g aticke t purchas e tha t

i s late r abandone donc e th e fiill fare i s known . Thes e beneficiarie s se e afar e advertise d(i n print , o n television , etc. ) tha t

doe s no t includ e al l taxe s an dfee s an ddecid e t o mak e th e effor t t o purchas e

^ Fo r example, i n 2008 , th e Departmen

t issue da n orde r assessin g acompromis

e civi l penalt y o f $50,00 0 agains t Allegian t fo r no t includin g convenienc

e fee s i n initia l bas e fare s displaye di n websit e advertisement

s despit e suc h convenienc

e fee s bein g mandator y fo r on-lin e bookings . Similarly , i

n 2009 , th e Departmen

t issue da n orde r assessin g acompromis

e civi l penalt y o f $375,00 0 agains t Spiri t fo r anumbe r o f violation s o f ou r consume r protectio n regulations , includin

g it s displa y o f fare s o n it s websit e tha t di dno t includ e certai n carrier-impose

dfee s i n th e advertise d"base fare. " Bot

h carrier s wer e directe dt o ceas e an ddesis t fro mfutur e simila r violations . Se

e Allegian t Airlines (Orde

r 2008-9-18 , Septembe

r 15 . 2008 ) an dSpiri t Airlines (Orde

r 2009-9-8 , Septembe

r 17 , 2009) .aticke t

base do n th e advertise dprice , onl y t o fin dtha t th e full-fare pric e i s 'to o high ' an dn o longe r wort h purchasing.' * Fina l Regulator y Analysis , Consume r Rulemaking : Enhancin g Airlin e Passenge r

Protection s II , p . 56 . Th e regulator y evaluatio n als o note s tha t "passenger s wh o purchas e ticket s fro mwebsite s tha t di dno t previousl y presen t

full fare s u p front

wil l benefi t b y (1 ) savin g tim e tha t

woul dpreviousl y hav e bee n spen t searchin g for

th e full fare o n singl e o r multipl e website s t o b e abl e t o compar e full-fare price s o r (2 ) avoidm g bein g attracte db y lower , incomplet e fare s an dthe n no t full y takin g int o accoun t th e full fare whe n i t

i s subsequentl y revealed , whic h i n tur n ma y lea dt o les s tha n optima l purchasin g decisions. " I d Althoug h Petitioner s assert that th e agenc y ha da n insufficien t basi s for concludin g that

th e ne w polic y woul dreduc e custome r searc h times , the y faile dt o provid e conmient s o n th e preliminar y regulator y analysi s that

deal t with this issue , whic h wa s poste di n th e rulemakin g docke t o n Jime 2 , 2010 . In th e preliminar y regulator y analysis , w e state dthat w e ar e expressl y solicitin g comment s o n th e estimate dbenefit s for this provisio n "includin g th e averag e searc h tim e save d for passenger s wh o alread y searc h for full fare information ; th e percentag e o f passenger s wh o spen dtim e searchin g website s t o fm dfull fare ticke t

information ; th e percentag e o f onlin e ticke t purchaser s wh o purchas e onl y fro mwebsite s tha t provid e full-fare pricin g up-front ; th e percentag e o f

passenger s wh o ar e fully awar e o f adde dfee s an dtaxe s whe n purchasin g ticket s fro mtrave l site s tha t

d o no t automaticall y displa y tha t dat au p front.... " Preliminar y Regulator y Analysis , Consume r

Rulemaking : Enhancin g Airlin e Passenge r Protection s II , pp . 42-43 . Th e Petitioner s decline dt o tak e advantag e o f thi s opportunit y an dye t

woul dno w den y this protectio n t o al l consumer s o n th e basi s that i t woul dallegedly harmthes e tw o carriers ' commercia l opportunities . I n sum , th e requiremen t

tha t th e pric e advertise dinclud e al l mandator y fee s includin g governmen t

taxe s an dfee s doe s no t

violat e th e Firs t

Amendmen t

an di s no t

arbitrar y an d capricious , bu t

ameasure drespons e t o th e nee dt o preven t misleadin g an ddeceptiv e advertisements . Thus , th e Departmen t conclude s diat

Petitioner s hav e no t

demonstrate da likelihoo do f

succes s o n th e merit s with respec t t o this provisio n o f

th e final rule . Allowin g Reservation s t o B e Hel da t th e Quote dFar e Petitioner s als o assert

tha t th e Departmen t

exceede dit s statutory authorit y whe n i t require d carrier s t o permi t

consumer s t o hol dfare s withou t paymen t o r cance l withou t

penalt y for

a t leas t twenty-fou r

hour s after

th e reservatio n i s mad e if th e reservatio n i s mad e on e wee k o r mor e prior t o aflight's departure . Th e carrier s argu e that thi s requiremen t

i s afor mo f fare regulatio n eliminate db y th e Airlin e Deregulatio n Act . Th e carrier s als o conten dtha t th e decisio n t o impos e suc h arequiremen t

i s arbitrary an dcapriciou s a s th e Departmen t faile dt o provid e a n explanatio n fo r wh y th e practic e o f

no t offerin g suc h reservation s i s pe r s e unfai r o r deceptive . Althoug h th e Airlin e Deregulatio n Ac t phase dou t

regulatio n o f

domesti c airlin e rate s an droutes , Congres s di dno t

discontinu e th e govenmient' s rol e an dauthorit y t o protec t consumer s fro m unfai r o r deceptiv e practices . Indeed , th e Hous e Report accompanyin g th e Civi l Aeronautic s Boar d("CAB" ) Sunse t

Act , whic h transferre dth e responsibilit y for protectin g consumer s fro m th e CA B t o DOT , state dtha t acontinuin g governmen t rol e t o protec t

airlin e consumer s wa s necessar y becaus e "[tjhes e problem s involv e importan t issue s o f health , passenge r

comfort , an dsocia l policy , an di n thes e limite darea s th e solution s reache db y th e marketplac e ar e no t alway s acceptable. " GA O Report , Airlin e Competition : DOT' s Implementatio n o f Airlin e Regulator y Authorit y (Jun e 1989) , p . 39 . Th e custome r

servic e standard s i n th e final rule , includin g th e requiremen t for airline s t o allo w passenger s t o hol dareservatio n withou t paymen t o r cance l withou t

paymen t for twenty-fou r hour s if th e reservatio n i s mad e on e wee k before travel , wer e pu t

i n plac e b y th e Departmen t becaus e i t foun dthat

th e solutio n reache db y th e marketplac e i n thi s are awa s unfai r o r deceptive . I n 2009 , th e Departmen t

issue dafinal rul e whic h required , amon g othe r things , that

U.S . carrier s adop t custome r servic e plan s that

addres s "allowin g reservation s t o b e hel do r cancelle dwithou t penalty for

adefine damoun t

o f time. " 7 4 Fed . Reg . 6898 3 (Dec . 30 , 2009) . Thi s rul e becam e effectiv e o n Apri l 29 , 2010 . However , after reviewin g carriers * custome r servic e plans , w e conclude dtha t

th e protection s afforde dconsumer s i n tha t final rul e wer e no t

sufficient . I n particular . Spiri t

an dAllegian t

an dafe w other s di dno t adop t pla n provision s t o effectuat e th e inten t o f th e rule . W e foun dthat

som e carrie r

plans , thoug h arguabl y i n complianc e with th e origina l rule , wer e unfai r i n tha t the y di dno t

provid e adequat e protectio n t o consumer s o r wer e deceptiv e i n tha t the y wer e vaguel y written , makin g i t difficul t for aconsume r

t o kno w exactl y what

acarrie r wa s committin g t o do . Fo r

example , Allegian t

state s i n it s custome r

servic e pla n tha t

i t doe s no t allo w reservation s t o b e hel dwithou t full paymen t

bein g mad e a t

tim e o f booking . I n th e sam e plan , Allegian t

state s tha t

customers ca n cance l then

- reservation s up t o 2 4 hour s befor e th e schedule dtim e o f

departure , bu t

fail s t o mentio n that

ther e ar e significan t

fee s associate dwith cancellatio n o r

that th e remainin g fimd s ar e returne donl y a s acredi t vouche r for futur e trave l o n Allegian t t o tak e plac e n o late r

tha n on e year

fro mth e dat e th e origina l itinerar y wa s booked . A custome r need s t o revie w variou s section s o f Allegiant' s term s an dcondition s o f trave l t o ascertai n th e fee s that

wil l b e deducte dfro mth e amoun t o f th e credi t

voucher : acancellatio n fe e o f $5 0 pe r segment , pe r

person , aconvenienc e fe e o f $16.9 9 pe r

travelin g passenge r

for purchase s that

ar e no t mad e a t an y o f Allegiant' s ticke t

offices , an da n additiona l $ 14.9 9 pe r segment , pe r

passenge r

for purchase s mad e throug h a n Allegian t

Ai r Cal l Center . Fo r

example , if afamil y o f

four ha daround-tri p ticke t

consistin g o f

tw o nonsto p Allegian t

flights tha t

the y purchase donline , th e cos t o f cancellatio n for

the mwoul db e $467.96 . I f th e sam e famil y o f

four ha dpurchase dth e ticke t

throug h th e cal l center , th e cos t o f cancellatio n woul dincreas e t o $587.88 . Thi s significan t cancellatio n fe e canno t

b e gleane dfromarevie w o f Allegiant' s custome r servic e plan . Moreover , w e vie w i t

a s a n imfair

an ddeceptiv e practic e no t t o provid e a"coolin g of

f period* ' for th e purchas e o f

airlin e tickets . A s w e note di n th e NPRM , Congres s modele dth e Department' s statutory authorit y unde r 4 9 U.S.C . § 4171 2 t o prohibi t imfair an ddeceptiv e practice s o n sectio n 5 o f

th e Federa l Trad e Commissio n (FTC ) Act , 1 5 U.S.C . § 45 . Se e 1 5 Fed . Reg . 32318 , 3232 8 (Jun e 8 , 2010) . Th e FT C ha s athre e da y coolin g of f rul e for sale s mad e a

t a locatio n that

i s no t th e seller' s permanen t

plac e o f business.* * In addition , som e state s hav e

• * Sinc

e i 972 , th e FT C ha s ha darequiremen

t fo r athre e da y cooling-of

f perio dfo r sales o f $2 5 o r mor e mad e a t alocatio n tha t is no t th e seller' s permanen

t plac e o f busines s {e.g. , sales a

t th e buyer' s residenc

e o r a t facilities rente do n atemporar

y o r shor t ter mbasis , suc

h a s hote l o r mote l rooms , conventio

n centers , fairground

s an d restaurants , o

r sales a t th e buyer' s workplac

e o r i n dormitor y lounges) . 1 6 C.F.R

. § 429.0(a) .institute dcoolin g of f period s for

avariet y o f

othe r purchases. ^ Th e FT C promulgate dit s coolin g of f rul e t o preven t

customer s fro mbein g pressure dint o makin g unwante dpurchases . Se e 3 7 Fed . Reg . 22937-4 0 (Oct . 26,1972) . Similarly , w e ar e requirin g acoolin g of f perio dfor

airlin e ticke t purchase s t o preven t

consumer s fro mbein g rushed/pressure dint o makin g imwante d purchases . A coolin g of f perio dallow s consumer s t o chec k for lowe r fare s an dgive s the mtim e t o coordinat e thei r

othe r trave l arrangement s withou t losin g aquote dfare . I

t i s als o worth notin g tha t

th e carrier s an dno t

th e passenge r

determin e th e methodolog y tha t wil l b e use dt o hol da n airfare reservation : th e reservatio n i s hel dwithou t paymen t o r th e reservatio n i s hel d with paymen t

whic h th e carrie r

mus t refimdwithou t

penalt y if

requeste dwithi n 2 4 hours . A s for th e argumen t

that th e requiremen t

for airline s t o allo w reservation s t o b e hel da t th e quote dfare i s arbitrar y an dcapricious , w e not e tha t w e explaine dou r

reasonin g for

this requiremen t

i n th e notic e o f

propose drulemaking . W e state dtha t "man y carriers * custome r servic e plan s ar e no t

specific enoug h for

aconsume r

t o hav e realisti c expectation s o f th e type s o f service s acarrie r

wil l provid e imde r

it s plan , o r

tha t som e carrier s may no t

b e livin g u p t o theu " custome r servic e commitments.' * 7 5 Fed . Reg . 32318 , 3232 3 (Jun e 8 , 2010) . W e elaborate d further that "whe n determmin g what minimu mstandard s t o appl y t o thes e plans , th e Departmen t reviewe dcustome r

servic e plan s a s currentl y implemente db y anumbe r o f carriers , an dchos e th e service s alread y provide db y som e carrier s that appear t o b e 'bes t

practices. ' * ' Id . Also , despit e argument s t o th e contrar y b y Petitioners , th e final rul e addresse s th e substantial objection s an dconcern s raise di n th e rulemakin g docke t regardin g th e impac t

o f thi s provision . I n fact , w e agree dwith th e comment s o f th e carrier s wh o suggeste dthat , shoul dw e adop t this provision , w e shouldestablis h apoin t i n tim e after

whic h carrier s ar e n o longe r require dt o follo w th e "twenty-fou r

hour " rul e a s i t

"coul dresul t

i n los s o f sale s an drevenu e b y carrier s an d preven t othe r passenger s frompurchasin g th e seat if th e seat i s no t release di n atimel y maime r prior t o di e flight." 7 6 Fed . Reg . 23110 , 2312 9 (Apr.25 , 2011) . A s such , w e modifie dth e provisio n s o that

th e requiremen t

t o hol dth e reservatio n for twenty-fou r

hour s doe s no t

appl y durin g th e las t

seve n day s befor e aflight. Thi s modificatio n strike s abalanc e betwee n consumers ' need s t o mak e trave l plan s an dsho p for afare , an dth e carrier' s nee dfor adequat e tim e t o sel l seats . In sum , th e requiremen t

t o hol da n airfar e withou t

paymen t fo r 2 4 bom' s if

aconsimie r

make s th e reservatio n on e wee k

o r mor e prio r

t o aflight's schedule ddepartur e i s no t afor mo f fare regulation eliminate db y th e Au:lme Deregulatio n Ac t an di s no t

arbitrary an dcapricious , bu t rathe r ameasure drespons e t o preven t a n unfai r an ddeceptiv e practice . A s aresult , th e Departmen t

conclude s tha t

th e Petitioner s hav e no t

demonstrate dalikelihoo do f succes s o n th e merit s o n thi s issue .

' Fo r example, th

e Stat e o f Washingto n ha s severa l buyer' s remors

e law s tha t protec t customers . Yo

u ca n cance l healt h clu b memberships withi

n thre e days o f signin g u p i n Washington . Th

e Stat e o f Tennesse e i s anothe r exampl e o f astat e wit h multipl e buyer' s remors

e laws : Tennesse

e provides consumer

s wit h I S ful l busines s days t

o cance l campin g clu b o r vacatio n clu b contracts .Pos t

Purchas e Pric e Increase s Petitioner s maintai n diat

th e Department' s decisio n t o prohibi t post-purchas e pric e increase s for service s an dproduct s no t purchase dwith th e ticke t i s arbitrary an dcapricious . Thi s includes , bu t i s no t limite dto , fee s for

checke dbaggage , carry-o n baggage , meals , advanc e o r upgrade d seatin g assignments , cancelin g o r changin g reservations , an dpe t transportation . A s support , th e carrier s clai mthat

th e Departmen t

ha s no t foun dtha t

carrier s hav e engage di n suc h practices , ha s no t articulate darationa l basi s for deemin g suc h charge s t o b e unfai r o r deceptiv e an dha s no t explaine dth e reason s tha t flex-fares woul db e unfai r o r deceptive . However , th e carrier s provid e littl e evidenc e t o suppor t thei r claims . Th e fac t

that th e Departmen t

ha s no t foun dUia

t carrier s ar e currentl y engagin g i n post-purchas e pric e increase s doe s no t mea n that

carrier s wil l no t

d o s o i n th e future . Indeed , i t appear s that

basedo n Spirit' s an dAllegiant' s lawsui t

challengin g thi s provisio n that th e carrier s woul dlik e t o engag e i n suc h a practic e b y increasin g th e pric e o f ancillary service s an dproduct s no t purchase dwith th e ticket . Further , th e Departmen t

articulate darationa l basi s for deemin g suc h charge s t o b e unfai r o r deceptiv e i n th e NPRM . Th e Departmen t explaine dthat

"[cjonsumer s ar e no t

mad e awar e o f

th e potentia l for

apric e increas e a

t th e tim e o f

purchase , an dtherefor e ar e deceive dwhe n th e increas e i s impose dan dth e selle r use s th e term s o f

th e contrac t

of carriag e t o justif

y a n additiona l collection. " 7 5 Fed . Reg . 32318 , 3233 0 (Jun e 8 , 2010) . Whe n purchasin g tickets , passenger s ar e intereste di n no t onl y th e pric e o f

th e fare bu t

als o th e pric e fo r

ancillar y service s an dproducts. * Th e presenc e o r

absenc e o f

afe e for acertai n servic e o r

product , alon g with th e amoun t o f suc h fee , influence s acustomer' s purchasin g decision . Fo r example , conside r

aconsume r

wh o purchase s non-refundabl e ticket s for afamil y o f

four , base do n th e carrier' s representatio n a t th e tim e tha t baggag e i s free , an dth e carrie r subsequentl y change s it s polic y an dintroduce s aba g fee . Tha t famil y coul dsuddenl y b e payin g hundred s o f dollar s mor e than the y anticipated . Conside r als o thi s sam e consume r havin g purchase dfour

ticket s bu t

decidin g no t

t o pa y afirst checke dba g fe e o f

$2 5 a t th e tim e o f

purchas e becaus e th e firs t checke dba g fe e a t

tha t tim e i s $3 5 i f purchase da

t th e airport . Th e carrie r

subsequentl y change s it s firs t checke dba g fe e polic y s o tha t i t i s $10 0 if

purchase da

t th e airport . Thi s consume r ma y hav e mad e th e decisio n t o fly wiU i adifferen t

carrie r o r pay th e ba g fe e a

t di e tim e o f

ticke t purchas e ha dh e o r

sh e know n o f th e actua l baggag e fee s that woul dhav e applied . Impositio n o f post-purchas e fee s an dfe e increase s make s i

t difficul t if no t impossibl e for

consumer s t o mak e decision s rationall y a s the y lac k adequat e informatio n t o d o so . W e als o wan t

t o poin t ou t tha t th e prohibitio n o n th e impositio n o f post-piu-chas e fee s an dfe e increases for

ancillar y service s codifie s th e existin g enforcemen t polic y tha t

carrier s an dagent s canno t increas e th e pric e o f

baggag e after

th e purchas e o f

th e underlyin g ai r

transportatio n an d * Accordin

g t o asurve y o f 1 , 396 ai r traveler s conducte db y th e Consume r Trave l Allianc e fromAugus

t 20

- 31,2010 , tw

o ou t o f ever y thre e ai r traveler s sa y the y hav e bee n surprise da t th e airpor t b y unexpecte

dfee s fo r thing s suc h a s checke dbags , requestin

g asea t assignment

, gettin g extr alegroom , o r flyin g standby . Nearl

y tw o ou t o f thre e (65% ) also state

dtha t suc h fee s place dsom e o r agrea t dea l o f unexpecte dfinancial strai

n o n thei r budge t fo r th e trip . Se e Thing s tha t Anno y Traveler s Most: Consume

r Report s Surve y Results . Consume

r Trave l Allianc e Commen t o n Rulemaking, DOT-OST-2

0 lO-0140-1710 .expand s thi s protectio n t o othe r type s o f ancillar y service s an dproducts . In 2008 , th e Department* s Aviatio n Enforcemen t Offic e issue dguidanc e concernin g th e disclosur e o f baggag e fee s t o th e public . In that notice , th e offic e state dtha t "[ij n n o cas e shouldmor e restrictiv e baggag e policie s o r additiona l charge s b e applie dretroactivel y t o aconsume r wh o purchase dhi s o r

he r ticke t a t atim e whe n th e charge s di dno t apply , o r whe n alowe r

charg e applied. " Notic e o f

th e Assistan t

Genera l Counse l fo r

Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceedings , Guidanc e o n Disclosur e o f Policie s an dCharge s Associate dwith Checke dBaggage , Ma y 13 , 2008 , availabl e a

t http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules.guidance.ht m. Eve n befor e th e recentl y issue d final rule , acarrie r

ha dth e obligatio n unde r th e enforcemen t

polic y no t

t o chang e th e baggag e fee s betwee n th e dat e o f

purchas e an dda y o f

flight. Carriers , includin g Petitioners , hav e bee n complyin g wit

h thi s requiremen t

an dcontinu e t o d o so . Th e final rul e als o doe s no t impos e an y ne w obligatio n o n carrier s with respec t t o flex-fare ticket s althoug h th e Petitioner s appear t o believ e i

t does . A s w e understan dit , flex-fare ticket s woul dallo w consumer s t o choos e betwee n atraditiona l "locke din " fare that woul dno t

fluctuate, an dalowe r

fare that coul dchang e befor e th e dat e o f travel . I n Allegiant' s comments , submitte d t o th e rulemakin g docke t

wel l afte r th e dat e b y whic h suc h comment s wer e due , i t mention s that i t i s considerin g this ne w pricin g optio n for it s websit e an durge s th e Departmen t t o allo w carrier s t o implemen t

suc h apricin g structure . Becaus e Allegian t filedit s comment s man y months after

th e clos e o f

th e commen t

period , th e Departmen t

wa s unabl e t o full y conside r it s suggestio n A s such , th e Department' s rul e bannin g post-purchas e pric e increase s doe s no t addres s thi s issu e a

t al l ~ i t doe s no t explicitl y allo w o r

prohibi t this typ e o f

practice . I

t appear s tha t th e practic e a s describe di n Allegiant' s commen t woul db e a

n unfai r an ddeceptiv e practic e i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C . § 4171 2 a s i t

doe s no t appear that ther e i s amechanis mavailabl e for th e consume r t o kno w whe n di e pric e wil l mcrease . Shortl y after Allegiant' s comment , aconsume r advocac y grou p als o submitte dcomment s t o th e rulemakin g docket . AirlinePassengers.or g expresse dit s vie w tha t

Allegiant' s proposa l i s "[ajnothe r ste p backwar dfro mtru e transparenc y for consimiers. " Thi s organizatio n note dit s dee p concer n abou t th e "impossible-to-determin e tota l cos t becaus e Allegian t

woul ddetermin e tha t

tota l cos t o n it s own " an ddescribe d Allegiant' s ne w pricin g optio n a s "a n effor t t o hav e DO T approv e shiftin g norma l airlin e busines s risk

ont o th e consumer " Se e AurlinePassenger.or g lette r t o DO T date dFebruary 28 , 2011 , DOT-OST-2010-0140-2041 . In an y event , becaus e th e flex-fare pricin g structur e i s no t addresse di n th e rule , asta y i n th e rul e woul dhav e n o impac t o n thi s matter . Fo r th e reason s describe dabove , th e Department' s decisio n t o prohibi t post-purchas e fee s an d fe e increases for

service s no t

purchase dwith th e ticke t i s no t arbitrar y an dcapricious , an dth e Departmen t

ha s acte dwel l withi n it s statutory authorit y i n imposin g thi s prohibition . Nothin g i n th e final rul e tell s carrier s what the y ca n charg e for , o r

ho w muc h the y can charg e for it . Th e fina l rul e simpl y require s tha t carrier s notif

y consumer s o f

existin g charge s a t

tim e o f purchas e an dhono r thos e commitments . Th e final rul e als o doesn' t addres s th e flex fare pricin g structur e a s Petitioner s contend . Thus , th e Departmen t find s that

Petitioner s hav e faile dt o demonstrat e a likelihoo do f

succes s o n th e merit s o n this issue .1 0

Baggag e Fe e Informatio n o n E-Ticket s an dOthe r Electroni c Confirmation s Petitioner s argu e tha t

th e Departmen t

acte darbitraril y an dcapriciousl y b y requirin g carrier s t o provid e individualize dbaggag e charg e informatio n o n e-ticke t an dothe r

electroni c confirmations . A s support for this argument , th e carrier s clai mthat th e Departmen t

faile dt o explai n ho w curren t

practice s regardin g th e disclosur e o f baggag e allowance s an dbaggag e charge s ar e unfai r

o r deceptive . I

n addition , th e carrier s questio n th e legalit y o f permittin g agents bu t

no t airline s t o provid e this informatio n vi aalink t o th e baggag e fe e pag e o f acarrie r website . Also , presimiabl y a s fijrther support for it s contentio n that

th e Departmen t

oversteppe d it s statutor y authorit y an dacte darbitraril y an dcapriciously , whil e acknowledgin g tha t th e rul e provide s informatio n abou t th e benefit s associate dwith thi s provisio n th e carrier s not e tha t thes e benefit s ar e no t

quantified . First , th e Petitioner s ar e mistake n i n then : belie f tha t th e rul e require s individualize dbaggag e charg e informatio n o n e-ticke t an dothe r

electroni c confirmations . Th e rul e state s that , o n al l e ticke t confirmations, includin g th e summar y pag e a t th e completio n o f

a n onlin e purchase , carrier s mus t

provid e informatio n regardin g th e fre e baggag e allowanc e an dfe e fo r acarry-o n ba g an dth e first

an dsecon dchecke dba g "a s specifi c charge s takin g int o accoimt an y factor s (e.g. , frequen t

flyer status , earl y purchase , an ds o forth ) that affec t thos e charges. " 7 6 Fed . Reg . 23110 , 23166-6 7 (Apr.25 , 2011) . W e use dth e ter m"specifi c charges " t o ensur e tha t di e regulate dentitie s understoo dthat arang e o f

fee s woul dno t

b e acceptabl e unde r

th e rule . In othe r words , carrier s mus t

provid e specifi c informatio n t o consumer s abou t al l th e factor s that caus e th e fe e for

acarry-o n ba g o r

th e first an dsecon dchecke dba g t o vary s o passenger s ca n determin e for

themselve s th e fee s tha t

woul dappl y t o them . Fo r example , i t

woul dno t

b e sufficient for acarrie r t o stat e tha t

th e fe e for

th e first checke dba g range s fro m$ 0 t o $50 , However , i t

woul dacceptabl e if

th e carrie r

state s that

th e fee for

th e firs t checke dba g woul db e $ 0 for it s elit e frequen t

flyer passenger s o r

thos e with aspecifie dcredi t card , $2 5 for

passenger s wh o purchas e i t

online , an d$5 0 for

thos e passenger s wh o pay a t th e airport . O f

course , carrier s ar e fre e t o provid e individualize dbaggag e charg e informatio n t o passenger s bu t this i s no t require db y th e rule . Despit e assertion s t o th e contrar y fro mth e Petitioners , th e Departmen t ha s provide da

n explanatio n regardin g ho w th e curren t practic e regardin g th e disclosur e o f baggag e allowance s an dbaggag e charge s ar e unfa h an ddeceptive . Presently , carrier s d o no t provid e consumer s wit

h informatio n regardin g thei r fre e baggag e allowanc e o r fee s for checke dan dcarry-o n baggag e o n e-ticke t confirmations . Th e Departmen t ha s state do n mor e than on e occasio n tha t i t view s checke do r

carry-o n baggag e a s bein g "fundamenta l t o ai r travel. " 7 6 Fed . Reg , 23110 , 2314 8 (Apr.25 , 2011) . Individua l commenter s o n th e propose drul e note dbein g "surprise db y additiona l baggag e fee s whe n the y check-i n a t th e airport. " Id . Th e Consume r Trave l Allianc e als o submitte dcomment s statin g that i t "foun dthat

6 6 percen t

o f passenger s wer e surprise db y airlin e fee s a

t th e airport

an d6 5 percen t

sai dthes e fee s cause dimexpecte dfinancial strain. " Se e Consume r

Trave l Allianc e lette r

t o DO T date dSeptembe r 20 , 2010 , p . 11 , DOT-OST-2010

- 0140-1507 . W e vie w th e lac k o f disclosur e t o consumer s abou t cany-o n baggag e an dfirst an d secon dchecke dba g fee s i n tex t formi n th e e-ticke t

confirmatio n i n advanc e o f check-i n t o b e a n imfat r an ddeceptiv e practice . W e d o permi t ticke t agents , unlik e carriers , t o provid e th e requure d notic e o f applicabl e baggag e charge s throug h ahyperlin k "t o th e location s o n th e airiin e website s1 1

wher e specifi c informatio n ma y b e obtaine dsinc e th e airiine s often update an dchang e fees.* ' I d a t 23147 . A s for th e cost-benefi t

analysi s for

thi s provision , di e Petitioner s appear t o argu e that

th e Departmen t

exceede dit s statutor y audiorit y becaus e th e Departmen t estimate dcomplianc e cost s o f $ 8 millio n bu t

di dno t quantif y th e benefits . Th e Petitioner s acknowledg e Uia t th e Departmen t

ha s describe dqualitativ e benefit s for thi s provisio n i n th e rul e an ddi e Fina l Regulator y Analysi s accompanyin g it . Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 doe s no t

mandat e tha t

a n agenc y rel y onl y o n benefit s o r

cost s tha t

i t can quantify . I

t i s perfectl y reasonabl e an dacceptabl e for a n agenc y t o als o addres s an dconside r cost s an dbenefit s that

canno t b e monetized. ^ Se e OM B Circula r A-4 . Fo r th e reason s describe dabove , th e Petitioner s fai l t o demonstrat e that th e Department' s decisio n t o requir e carrier s t o provid e specifi c baggag e fe e informatio n o n e-ticket s an dothe r electroni c confirmation s overstep s it s statutor y authorit y an di s arbitrar y an dcapricious . Therefore , th e Departmen t conclude s tha t

th e Petitioner s hav e no t

demonstrate dalikelihoo do f succes s o n th e merit s with respec t t o thi s provisio n o f

th e final rule . Fligh t Statu s Notification s Petitioner s ar e claimin g tha t th e Department' s decisio n t o requir e flight statu s notification s i s arbitrary an dcapriciou s becaus e th e Departmen t gav e smalle r

carrier s reaso n t o believ e th e requiremen t

woul dno t

appl y t o the man dbecaus e th e Department' s regulator y analysi s fail s t o addres s th e cos t

impact s associate dwid i dii s requirement . Th e carrier s als o assert that flight cancellation s an ddelays wil l increas e imder th e rule , a s the y appear

t o believ e th e rul e require s notificatio n abou t

tentativ e cancellation s an ddelays . W e rejec t th e assertio n diat

th e Departmen t

gav e smalle r

carrier s reaso n t o believ e arequiremen t t o provid e informatio n abou t flight statu s change s t o passenger s an dmember s of th e genera l publi c woul dno t

appl y t o diem . Aldioug h di e Departmen t state dthat

i t wa s "tentatively " o f

di e opinio n tha t

th e cost s o f

this provisio n for

smalle r carrier s outweighe dth e benefit s t o consumers , i t invite dcomment s o n whethe r this requiremen t

shouldb e applie dt o smalle r U.S . carrier s an d foreig n carrier s an daske dfor informatio n o n di e cos t

an dbenefi t

o f expandin g coverag e t o dies e carriers . Se e 7 5 Fed . Reg . 32318 , 3233 1 (Jun e 8 , 2010) . Indeed , th e Departmen t receive d comment s fro mvariou s organization s an dindividual s o n dii s point . Th e Ne w Yor k Stat e Consume r

Protectio n Board , Associatio n o f Airlm e Passenge r

Rights , Flyersrights.org , Consumer s Union , variou s commenter s o n RegulationRoom.org , an dAirport s Counci l International-North Americ a(ACI-NA ) al l submitte dcomment s supportin g expandin g th e propose dcoverag e o f

this rul e t o smalle r

U.S . carrier s an dforeig n carriers . ACI-N A specificall y point s ou t diat delays an dcancellation s b y smalle r carrier s wh o mainl y serv e smal l an dnon-hu b airports ca

n hav e sever e advers e effect s o n connectio n hubs . Th e Departmen t see s n o reaso n for smalle r carrier s t o conclud e tha t

th e Departmen t

ha drule dou t

applyin g thi s provisio n t o them . OM B Circula r A- 4 states tha t "Yo u shoul dmonetiz e quantitativ

e estimates wheneve

r possible . Us

e soun d an ddefensibl e value s o r procedure s t o monetiz e benefit s an dcosts , an densur e tha t ke y analytica l assumption

s ar e defensible . I

f monetizatio

n i s impossible, explai

n wh y an dpresen t al l availabl e quantitativ

e information. " (p . 19) .1 2

W e als o rejec t

th e argumen t

tha t th e Departmen t

di dno t weig h th e relativ e cost s an dbenefit s o f requirin g flight

statu s notification s o f

smalle r carriers . W e not e that

bot h Petitioner s faile dt o commen t o n th e flight

statu s notificatio n provisio n i n th e NPR M despit e th e Departmen t specificall y solicitin g commen t o n "whethe r

th e regulatio n shoul dcove r agreate r numbe r o f carrier s an doperations , includin g operation s o f smalle r U.S . carrier s and/o r

internationa l operation s o f

U.S . an dforeig n carriers " an d"[w]ha t woul db e th e cos t

o r benefi t o f expandin g coverag e t o dios e additiona l carriers? " 7 5 Fed . Reg . 32318 , 3233 1 (Jun e 8 , 2010) . Th e Departmen t

mad e adeterminatio n t o appl y th e flight statu s notificatio n requiremen t t o smalle r U.S . carrier s an dforeig n ai r carrier s becaus e i t

conclude dtha t

th e unquantifiabl e benefit s outweighe dth e imquantifiabl e cost s base do n al l th e informatio n availabl e t o it . 7 6 Fed . Reg . 23110 , 2315 8 (Apr . 25 , 2011) . Mor e specifically , di e Departmen t explaine ddiat

"monetize d estimate s coul dno t

b e develope dfromth e informatio n availabl e o n th e record* * for th e requu-ement

t o provid e promp t

passenge r

notificatio n o f

flight statu s changes . Id . However , i t adde dthat

ther e ar e "lajdditiona l imquantifiabl e benefit s that ar e dkectl y o r

indirectl y relate dt o thi s rulemaking , whic h resul t i n benefit s that

th e Departmen t

ha s determine djustif

y th e costs. " It identifie dthi s unquantifiabl e benefi t a s th e benefi t

t o consume r

fro m"tg]reate r

comfort an d certaint y fro mknowin g tha t informatio n wil l b e availabl e i n atimel y maimer. " Id . Pu t anothe r way , consumer s shouldno t b e lef t with critica l schedul e informatio n relate dt o thei r tri p that th e carrie r know s i s false . Th e Departmen t

further explaine dth e qualitativ e benefi t o f di e rul e b y statin g tha t

"[t]h e nee d for , an dimportance o f

timely notificatio n regardin g flight delays , diversion s o r

cancellation s exist s whethe r

i t i s aU.S . o r

foreig n carrie r

operatin g di e flight

an dwhethe r

i t i s anon-reportin g o r reportin g carrie r

operatm g th e flight." I da t 23154 . A s for

th e cost , th e Departmen t state s tha t i t expect s that

"foreig n carrier s an dnon-reportin g U.S . carrier s wil l wor k with thei r

code-shar e reporting-carrie r

partners , mos t

o f whic h hav e th e necessar y system s i n place , t o compl y with th e notificatio n requirement s containe di n this final rule. " Id . Whil e w e recogniz e tha t Petitioner s d o no t code-shar e with th e reportin g carriers , w e d o no t expec t dies e carrier s o r

othe r smal l carrier s t o b e startin g fromscratc h t o compl y wit h thi s requiremen t

a s the y alread y addres s notifym g consumer s o f

know n delays , cancellations , an ddiversion s i n thei r custome r servic e plan s a s require db y th e prio r

consume r

rule . Petitioner s als o see mt o misunderstan dth e flight statu s notificatio n requirements , whic h ma y b e th e reaso n the y believ e th e cos t impac t i s muc h large r

tha n i t actuall y is . Th e carrier s mistakenl y believ e th e final rul e requure s carrier s t o notif y passenger s an dth e publi c o f "tentativ e delay s o r cancellations. " I

n th e NPRM , w e propose dt o requir e carrier s t o provid e notification s i n situation s wher e th e carrie r become s awar e o r

shouldhav e becom e awar e o f aflight statu s change . Man y carrier s challenge dth e "shoul dhav e known " standard , arguin g tha t i t i s difficul t t o compl y with this standard. Th e Departmen t agree dwith commenter s diat thi s propose d standar dwoul dhav e create duncertaintie s an ddi dno t includ e i t

i n th e final rule . Unde r

th e final rule , carrier s ar e onl y require dt o notif y passenger s an dother s o f an y "known " delay , diversion , an dcancellation . W e d o no t conside r acarrie r t o b e awar e o f

adelay o r

cancellatio n whe n th e carrie r i s stil l i n th e proces s o f

determinin g whethe r

suc h achang e ma y occur . Carrier s ar e als o fre e unde r

th e rul e t o notif

y passenger s that

adelay o r

cancellatio n may hav e t o occur , i f th e final decisio n ha s no t

a s ye t bee n made .1 3

tn sum , th e Department' s decisio n t o requir e smalle r carrier s t o provid e informatio n abou t flight statu s change s i s no t

arbitrar y an dcapricious , a s di e Departmen t solicite dcomment s o n whethe r thi s requiremen t

shouldb e applie dt o smalle r U.S . carrier s an dconsidere dth e cos t impact s t o them . Thus , th e Departmen t conclude s that

Petitioner s hav e faile dt o demonstrat e alikelihoo d o f succes s o n th e merit s o n this issue . U . Petitioner s Hav e No t Demonstrate dTha t

The v Woul dSuffe r

Irreparabl e Har mi n th e Absenc e o f

aSta v In orde r t o obtai n astay . Petitioner s mus t als o demonstrat e tha t

the y wil l suffer

irreparabl e har m absen t asta y o f th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e amendment s pendin g judicia l review . Irreparabl e injury i s th e essentia l predicat e for areques t for asta y o f agenc y actio n pendin g review . 5 U.S.C . § 705 . hideed , "[t]h e basi s for injunctiv e relie f

i n th e federal court s ha s alway s bee n irreparabl e har man dinadequac y o f

lega l remedies. " Sampso n v . Murray , 41 5 U.S . 61 , 8 8 (1974) , quote di n Wisconsi n Ga s Co . v . FERC , 75 8 F.2 d669 , 67 4 (D.C . Cir . 1985) . Petitioners ' contention s o f ureparabl e har mres t

i n part o n thei r clai mthat

aviolatio n o f

th e Firs t Amendmen t

automaticall y result s i n irreparabl e harm . However , whe n th e irreparabl e harm allege d"i s inseparabl y linked " t o aclai mo f aFirs t Amendmen t

violation , th e irreparabl e har m determinatio n first

require s a

n analysi s o f

Petitioners * likelihoo do f succes s o n th e merits . See , e.g. , Newsom e v . Albemarl e County Schoo l Board , 35 4 F.3 d249 , 254-5 5 (4d i Cir . 2003) ; Giovan i Carandola , Ltd . v . Bason , 30 3 F.3 d507 , 51 1 (4d i Cir . 2002) . Here , Petitioner s canno t simpl y assert

a"pe r se " findin g o f

irreparabl e har mbecause , a s se t fort h above , the y hav e faile d t o establis h alikelihoo do f succes s o n th e merit s o f

thei r Firs t Amendmen t

clai munde r

Centra l Hudso n Ga s & Elec . Corp . v . PublicServ . Comm' n ofN.Y. , 44 7 U.S . 55 7 (1980 ) an dit s progeny . Petitioner s als o alleg e the y wil l suffe r irreparabl e economi c injur y i n di e for

mo f complianc e costs , los t opportunit y costs , an ddamag e t o diei r corporat e system/identitie s unles s ther e i s asta y o f th e effectiv e dat e pendin g judicia l review . Th e D.C . Circui t impose s " ahig h standar dfor irreparabl e injury. " Chaplainc y o f Ful l Gospe l Churche s v . England , 45 4 F.3 d290 , 29 7 (D.C . Cir . 2006) . "ITjh e injur

y 'mus t b e bot h certai n an dgreat ; i t mus t b e actua l an dno t

theoretical. " Id . (quotin g Wise . Ga s Co. , 75 8 F.2 da t 674) , Also,"[t]h e movin g party mus t sho w '[t]h e mjiu ^ complaine do f

i s o f suc h imminenc e tha t

ther e i s a'clea r

an dpresent ' nee dfor

equitabl e relie f

t o preven t irreparabl e harm.' " Id . (citations , brackets , an dinterna l quotatio n mark s omitted) . Unde r this standard , Petitioner s hav e faile dt o mee t thei r burden . Withou t

providing supportin g evidence . Petitioner s conten dtha t the y wil l suffer

irreparabl e harmbecaus e die y "wil l b e force d t o dramaticall y chang e o r abando n th e marketing , distributio n an dpricin g model s that allowe d the mt o kee p ticke t

price s low. " The y assert tha t non-refundabl e ticket s an dflexibility i n ancillar y fee s an dservice s ar e essentia l t o keepin g Petitioner' s ticke t price s lo w an ddifferentiat e the mfro modie r

carriers . The y als o mentio n Spirit' s $ 9 Far e Clu b progra man dstat e tha t di e far e advertisin g rul e woul dhav e significan t negativ e impac t

o n this progra ma s i t

woul drequir e th e carrie r t o includ e governmen t

taxe s an dfee s an di f

purchase do n th e interne t aconvenienc e fe e whic h woul d"reduc e Spirit' s subscriptio n revenue s an dforc e ticke t price s t o rise. " Petitioner s ad dtha t "tajdvertisin g lo w bas e fare s i s essentia l for attractin g customers an dincreasin g deman d1 4

i n th e marke t

served. " The y argu e tha t th e rul e leave s "littl e distinctio n betwee n th e lo w fare carrier s an dlegac y carriers. " W e findth e Petitioner s argument s t o b e seriousl y flawedan drejec t thei r clai mtha t

the y wil l suffer irreparabl e economi c harmfor variou s reasons . Th e fare advertisin g rul e doesn' t caus e ticke t price s t o rise - th e passenge r woul dhav e ha dt o pay for th e governmen t

taxe s an dfee s an d i f purchase do n th e uiteme t aconvenienc e fe e (i n Spirit' s case ) whethe r o r no t th e full fare advertisin g rul e existed . Th e ful l fare requiremen t simpl y ensure s th e passenge r i s awar e o f

th e tota l ticke t

pric e earlier . A s for

th e argumen t

diat displayin g th e full fare coul dreduc e Spirit' s subscriptio n revenues , w e agre e tha t i t i s possibl e that

apassenge r

ma y no t b e a s intereste di n th e $ 9 Far e Clu b progra mwhe n the y realiz e that th e actual cos t

o f trave l i s mor e tha n $9 . However , th e impac t

o f th e full fare advertisin g rul e o n Spiri t for it s $ 9 Far e Clu b progra mi s n o differen t tha n th e impac t

o n othe r carriers , includin g legac y carriers , wh o woul dals o b e require dt o displa y al l th e mandator y fee s associate dwith ai r trave l mth e ticke t

price . Thi s wa s full y considere di n th e Department' s regulator y evaluation . Indeed , w e note dtha t on e o f th e benefit s o f th e full fare advertisin g rul e i s "th e tim e save dfor thos e consumer s beginnin g aticke t purchas e tha t

i s late r abandone donc e th e full fare i s known. " W e explai n tha t dies e mdividual s "se e afar e advertise d(i n print , o n television , etc. ) tha t doe s no t includ e al l taxe s an dfee s an d decid e t o mak e th e effor

t t o purchas e aticke t

basedo n th e advertise dprice , onl y t o findthat di e full-fare pric e i s 'to o high ' an dn o longe r wort h purchasing. " Fina l Regulator y Analysis , Consume r

Rulemaking : Enhancin g Airlin e Passenge r Protection s II , p . 56 . Petitioner s als o assert

that th e ne w rule s wil l requir e the mt o mak e unspecifie d"significan t change s t o thei r

website s an dth e wa y the y communicat e with thei r customers. " Absen t

an y explanatio n o r

evidenc e o f

th e natur e o f

th e require dchanges . Petitioners ' assertion s ar e entitle d t o littl e weight . Whil e w e acknowledg e that th e rul e require s som e change s t o advertisin g practices , i t

i s fa r fro mself-eviden t

tha t ther e woul db e adramati c cos t associate dwith alterin g web site s t o alert

customer s earlie r

i n th e purchas e proces s o f taxe s an dfee s tha t

alread y mus t

b e calculated , disclosed , an dcollecte da t di e tim e o f

purchase . W e note di n th e preambl e t o th e Apri l 25 , 201 1 rul e that

"seller s o f

ai r transportatio n are constand y updatin g thei r fare matrice s an ddi e mediod s b y whic h die y displa y fares. " Se e 7 6 Fed . Reg . 2314 3 (Apr . 25 , 2011) . h i addition , w e ar e no w givm g carrier s unti l Januar y 24 , 201 2 ( 9 mondis fromth e dat e th e final rul e wa s issued ) t o compl y wid i th e full-fare advertisin g provisions , allowin g the mt o us e thei r busines s judgmen t

t o determin e th e mos t

cost-effectiv e tim e an dmaime r t o mak e an y necessar y adjustments . W e als o findunpersuasiv e th e assertio n tha t th e final rul e wil l necessitat e achang e i n th e marketing , distributio n an dpricin g model s that allowe dPetitioner s t o kee p ticke t price s low . Again , th e Department' s full fare advertisin g rul e doe s no t increas e ticke t

price s bu t

require s disclosur e o f

th e actua l ticke t

prices . With respec t

t o ancillary service s an dfees , nothin g i n th e rul e tell s acarrie r

what kin do f ancillar y servic e o r

produc t the y ca n hav e o r

ho w muc h the y ca n charg e for

it . Th e rul e simpl y require s that carrier s notif

y consumer s o f

existin g charge s a

t tim e o f purchas e an dhono r

thos e commitments . Also , Petitioner s di dno t provid e an y evidenc e tha t die y wil l suffer

irreparabl e har mrelate dt o holdin g areservatio n for twenty-fou r

hour s withou t paymen t o r refundin g apajmien t

upo n reques t

withi n 2 4 hour s o f

th e sale . Th e Departmen t alread y addresse dth e cos t concern s regardin g thi s provisio n b y establishin g apoin t i n tim e after1 5

whic h carrier s ar e n o longe r require dt o follo w th e "twenty-fou r hour " rul e a s i

t '*couldresul t

i n los s o f sale s an drevenu e b y carrier s an dpreven t othe r passenger s fro mpurchasin g th e sea t i f th e sea t i s no t release di n atimely maime r prio r t o th e flight.'* 7 6 Fed . Reg . 23110 , 2312 9 (Apr.25 , 2011) . Petitioners ' allegation s d o no t establis h irreparabl e har munde r th e hig h standard s require db y applicabl e law . Accordmgly , th e Departmen t finds that

Petitioner s wil l no t

suffe r irreparabl e har mi n th e absenc e o f

asta y pendin g judicia l review . III . Substantia l Har mt o Othe r Partie s Woul dOccu r

I f aSta v I s Granted , an dIssuanc e o f aSta v Woul dHar mth e Publi c Interes t Petitioner s mus t

furthe r demonstrat e tha t

n o othe r partie s wil l b e harme dif asta y i s granted , an d that asta y woul dserv e th e publi c interest . Petitioner s argu e tha t astay woul dno t

impos e an y substantial har mo n an y othe r perso n an dtha t

astay woul dserv e th e publi c interes t b y maintainin g existin g consume r protectio n rule s an dpractice s i n plac e pendin g judicia l review . Thes e factor s ti p decisivel y i n favo r o f denyin g astay . Beyon dth e interest s o f Allegian t Ai r an d Spiri t Airlines , wh o disagre e with th e rul e amendments . Petitioner s fai l t o demonstrat e ho w a sta y woul dno t

har mothe r

partie s an dserv e th e publi c interest . Here , di e governmen t share s with th e publi c astron g interes t i n timely implementatio n an denforcemen t o f ai r passenge r consimie r protectio n regulations . Th e Departmen t i s no t persuaded , a s Petitioner s contend , diat th e publi c wil l b e confuse dif th e amendment s chang e a s aresul t o f judicia l review , o r

tha t th e publi c wil l benefi t

b y ai r carriers ' contmue ddeceptiv e practices . T o th e contrary , th e interest s o f odie r partie s an dth e publi c ar e bes t serve db y enhancin g protecdon s for airline s passenger s a s set fort h i n th e final rule . Airline s an dsale s agents currentl y hav e widel y varyin g practice s regardin g whic h taxe s an dfee s ar e include di n quote dprices , an dPetitioner s fail t o explai n ho w obtainin g consistenc y woul dconfuse , rathe r tha n aid , consumers . Moreover , if

th e Departmen t

wer e t o issu e asta y that

woul ddelay implementatio n o f th e amendment s beyon dth e ne w effectiv e dates , airlin e passenger s wil l suffer injur y b y th e practice s tha t th e amendment s see k

t o eliminat e i n th e ai r

trave l environment . See , e.g. , Seron o Laboratories , Inc . v . Shalala , 15 8 F.3 d1313 , 132 6 (D.C . Cir . 1998 ) (irreparabl e har mt o plaintif f arisin g fro mchallenge dregulation , balance dagains t similar harmt o athir dparty i f

th e sta y i s granted , resulte di n a'*wash " o n th e facto r o f irreparabl e harm) . Accordingly , th e Departmen t reject s th e contentio n that th e issuanc e o f

asta y i n thi s matte r

woul dno t

harmothe r

partie s an d serv e th e publi c interest .1 6

IV . Conclusio n Th e Departmen t

ha s reviewe dPetitioners * reques t for asta y o f th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e amendments , an dfinds tha t Petitioner s hav e faile dt o satisf y an y o f th e fou r criteri arequire dfor a n agenc y t o gran t

asta y pendin g judicia l review . Accordingly , th e Departmen t finds tha t

justic e doe s no t requir e asta y i n thi s matter . Sincerel y yours , Susa n Kurlan d Assistan t Secretar y for Aviatio n an dInternationa l Affair s