# o •'•":TM:^NTO - \'A' - iOWaRnmgton . D C 2059 0 ULS . Deoartmen t o f Assistan t secretar y. •. ; ,;- , - . - , - , ^ , 12G 0 Ne w Jerse yAv e . S E Ttansportotlo n Offic e o f th e Secretar y, . . | ^ ^ .. . ^ . o f Transportatio n ' • - - • " ' ' " ^ ' Jul y 20 , 201 1 Ro y Goldber g Counse l fo r

Southwes t

Airline s Co . SheppardMuUin Richte r

& Hampto n LL P 130 0 I Street , N W Washington , D.C . 20005-331 4 Dear Mr . Goldberg : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r lette r date dJul y 8 , 201 1 o n behal f o f Southwes t

Airline s Co . ("Southwest" ) requestin g that th e U.S._Department

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

sta y th e Octobe r

24 , 201 1 effectiv e dat e o f certai n provision s 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 b y th e Unite dState s Court of Appeal s fo r th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircuit . O n Jun e 1 5 an d16 , 2011 , respectively . Spiri t Airlines , Inc . ("Spirit" ) an dAllegian t

Ai r LL C ("Allegiant" ) (collectivel y "Petitioners" ) sough t judicia l revie w of thi s rule . O n Jul y 13 , 2011 , Southwes t file da n unoppose dmotio n for

leav e t o interven e i n support o f Petitioner s onl y a s t o th e full far e advertisin g provisio n o f th e final rule , 7 6 Fed . Reg . a t 23,16 6 (t o b e codifie da

t 1 4 C.F.R . § 399.84(a)) . Th e Court ha s no t ye t acte do n Southwest* s interventio n motion . 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 dtha t 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 final rule , includin g th e full fare advertisin g provisio n a

t issu 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 docke t

an do n DOT* s website , an dwil l subsequentl y b e 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 full fare advertisin g provision , 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 fo r

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 environmen t

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

are 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 lcarrier 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 t mus 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 pay t o passenger s bumpe dfro mflights ; (7 ) strengthens , clarifie s an dcodifie s th e Department' s enforcemen t

policie s concemm g ai r

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 transportation an do f

increases 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 fligh t 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

can 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 carmo t

b e enforce dagains t

U.S . an dforeig n ai r

carriers . Further , n o privat e righ t 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 . Southwes t

contend s tha t

th e full fare advertisin g provision s o f th e rul e imlawfull y end s th e practic e o f

peimittin g sellers o f

ai r transportatio n t o exclud e governmen t taxe s an dfee s fro mth e advertise dprice . 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 far e 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 Petifioner 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 stay i s warrante dare : (1 ) th e likelihoo dtha t th e party seekin g th e sta y wil l prevai l o n th e merits ; (2 ) th e likelihoo dthat th e movin g party wil l b e irreparabl y harme dabsen t astay ; (3 ) th e prospec t tha t other s wil l b e harme dif

asta y i s granted ; an d(4 ) th e publi c interes t i n 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 sta y i s considere d"a n extraordinar y remed y that shoul db e grante donl y whe n th e party seekin g relief , b y aclear showing , carrie s th e burde n o f persuasion. " Cobellv . Norton , 39 1 F.3d251 , 25 8 (D.C . Cir . 2004) . W e appl y thes e four criteri ai n evaluatin 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 this instance . I , Petitioner aAr e No t LikeW T o Succee dO n Th e Merits . Petitioner s an dSouthwes t conten dtha t

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 . The y als o challeng e a s arbitrar y 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 4 9 U.S.C . 4171 3 ("..State s 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 Mora/es v

. Tran s Worl dAirline , 50

4 U.S . 374 , n2S.Ct.2031 . U9L.Ed.2d157(1992) .separatel y fromnon-a dvalore mgovernmen t impose dtaxe s an dfee s collecte do n ape r passenge r basis . DO T disagree s with thes e allegations . Th e Firs t Amendmen t

doe s no t exten dt o commercia l speec h tha t doe s no t "accuratel y infor mth 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. , AA l U.S . 557 , 56 6 (1980) . Whe n commercia l speec h concern s alawfu l activit y an di s no t misleading , th e Departmen t ma y 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 advance s th e governmenta 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 tha t

interest . Id . Th e contentio n that

Southwest' s Firs t

Amendmen t

right s ar e violate dappear s t o b e base do n it s mistake n belie f

that th e Departmen t

ha s no t establishe dthroug h evidenc e i n th e recor dtha t fare advertisin g tha t

exclude s governmen t

taxe s an dfee s i s misleading . 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 receivedcomplaint s fro m consumer s regardin g fare advertisin g "som e o f whic h specificall y mentio n feelin g deceive d whe n the y ar e no t

quote dth e full pric e t o b e pai dafter a n initia l inquiry. " 7 6 Fed . Reg . 23110 , 2314 3 (Apr . 25 , 2011) . W e als o note dtha t "comment s fro mindividua l commenter s an dperson s participatin g i n Regulatio n Roo msho w consumer s feel deceive dwhe n th e total price , includin g taxe s an dfees , i s no t

quote dt o the mafter

a n initia l fare inquiry. " Id . I n addition , w e explaine d tha 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 d routing 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 * airfare t o consumers' * an dtha t "wit h thes e change s i n routings , taxe s an dfee s ca n increas e an dbecom e asignifican t portio n o f

th e pric e t o b e pai db y consumers. " Id . Further , th e rulemakin g recor dmake s i t clear tha t "i n recen t years , carrier s ar e increasingl y unbundlin g th e cos t o f ai r travel , whic h further

obscure s th e tota l fare t o b e pai db y th e consumer. " Id . Th e Departmen t believe s that

no t requirin g tha t

th e advertise dpric e includ e al l mandatory fee s includin g governmen t taxe s an dfee s whe n combine dwit

h th e increasingl y commo n practic e o f unbundlin g th e cos t

o f ai r trave l make s i t difficul t if no t impossibl e fo r

a n ordinar y perso n viewin g a n advertisemen t t o determin e th e tota l amoun t t o b e pai dfo r

th e transportation . W e als o disput e th e clai mthat th e prohibitio n o n th e practic e o f excludin g governmen t

taxe s an d fee s i s arbitrary an dcapriciou s because , accordin g t o thes e carriers , nothin g i n th e rulemakin g recor dsupport s areversa l o f polic y reliedo n b y th e airlin e industry whic h th e Departmen t reaffirme di n 2006 . Th e contention s o f th e Petitioner s an dSouthwes t ar e no t accurate . Th e Departmen t

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

"i n man y case s consumer 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 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 taAC 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 website s tha t displa y th e tota l price .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 thi s 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 m200 1 t o 2006 , th e Departmen t issue d5 6 enforcemen t

order s relatin g t o advertising , wit h assesse dpenaltie s o f

$1,877,000 . 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 $2,656,000 . 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 dfo r

searchin g fo r airfares. ^ I

n 2006 , tw o o f

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

with Interne t advertising . Tha t

numbe r ha s steadil y increase dove r th e las t thre e years : i n 2007 , four order s deal t

with interne t

advertising ; i n 2008 , 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 dtha t

carrier s an dticke t agent s wil l fin dne w an dcreative , an di n som e case s deceptive , way s t o advertis e airfare s further

circumventin g th e Department' s enforcemen t policy . In additio n t o th e reason s mentione dabov e fo r 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 savedfo r

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 . Thes e beneficiarie s se e afare advertise d(i n print , o n television , etc. ) that

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 aticke t basedo n th e advertise dprice , onl y t o findtha t th e full-fare pric e i s 'to o high ' an dn o longe r worth 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 that 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 fo r

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 ) avoidin g bein g attracte db y lower , incomplet e fare s an dthe n no t fully takin g int o accoun t th e full far

e whe n i t i s subsequentl y revealed , whic h i n turn may lea dt o les s tha n optima l purchasin g decisions. " Id . In sum , th e requiremen t

that th e pric e advertise dinclud e al l mandatory 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

• * 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 violations 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) .advertisements . Thus , th e Departmen t conclude s tha t

Petitioner s an dSouthwes t 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 . II . Petitioner s an dSouthwes t Hav e No t

Demonstrate dTha t

The v Woul dSuffe r Irreparabl e Har mi n th e Absenc e o f aSta y I n orde r t o obtai n astay . Petitioner s an dSouthwes t mus t als o demonstrat e tha t

die y wil l suffe r irreparabl e harmabsen t

asta y o f th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e amendment s pendin g judicia l review . Irreparabl e injur

y i s th e essentia l predicat e fo r areques t for astay o f agenc y actio n pendin g review . 5 U.S.C . § 705 . Indeed , "[t]h e basi s fo r injimctiv e relie f

i n th e federal court s ha s alway s bee n ureparabl 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 ' an dSouthwest' s contention s o f irreparabl e har mres t

i n part o n thei r clai mtha t

a violatio 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 har mallege d"i s inseparabl y linked' * t o aclai mo f aFirs t Amendmen t

violation , th e irreparabl e har mdeterminatio n firs t 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 (4th Cir . 2(X)3) ; Giovan i Carandola , Ltd . v . Bason , 30 3 F.3 d507 , 51 1 (4th Cir . 2002) . Here , Petitioner s canno t

simpl y assert

a"pe r se " finding o f

irreparabl e har mbecause , a s se t fort h above , the y hav e faile dt 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 . Publi c Serv . Comm' n ofN.Y. , 44 7 U.S . 55 7 (1980 ) an dit s progeny . Petitioner s an dSouthwes t als o alleg e the y wil l suffer irreparabl e economi c injur y i n th e for

mo f complianc e costs , los t

opportunit y costs , an ddamag e t o thei r corporat e system/identitie s imles 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) . "[T]h e injur y 'mus t b e both certai n an dgreat ; i t mus t b e acma 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 part y mus t sho w *[t]he injiuy complaine do f i s o f suc h imminenc e tha t

ther e i s a'clea r

an dpresent ' nee dfo r equitabl e relie f

t o preven t

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

thei r burden . Withou t providin g supportin g evidence , Petitioner s conten dtha t the y wil l suffer

irreparabl e har mbecaus e the y "wil l b e force dt o dramaticall y chang e o r abando n th e marketing , distributio n an dpricin g model s that

allowe dthe mt o kee p ticke t price s low. " The y mentio n Spirit' s $ 9 Far e Clu b progra man dstat e tha t

th e fare 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 dif

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 dthat "[ajdvertisin g lo w bas e fare s i s essentia l for attractin g customer s an dincreasin g deman di 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. "Southwes t echoe s Petitioners ' allegation s o f irreparabl e har mthroug h aconclusor y declaratio n submitte db y Dav e Ridley , aSouthwes t senio r vic e president . Southwes t contend s tha t complyin g with th e full fare advertisin g provision s o f th e final rul e wil l requir e significan t labo r an dfinancia l complianc e costs . Southwes t als o allege s i t

wil l b e "uniquel y hurt " b y th e final rul e du e t o recen t

change s t o it s "Rapi dRewards " frequen t flyer program . Southwes t

contend s tha t th e full fare advertisin g provision s wil l requir e "wholesal e changes " t o th e Rapi dReward s progra man dincrease dcomplianc e costs , an dwil l resul t i n consume r

confusion . W e fin dPetitioners ' an dSouthwest' s argument s seriousl y flawed, an drejec t thei r clai mthat

the y wil l suffer

irreparabl e economi c har mfor variou s reasons . Th e full fare advertisin g provision s d o no t caus e ticke t

price s t o ris e a s Petitioner s assert - th e passenge r

woul dhav e ha dt o pay fo r th e governmen t

taxe s an dfee s an di

f purchase do n th e interne t aconvenienc e fe e (i n Spirit' s case ) whethe r

o r no t th e ful l fare advertisin g rul e existed . Th e full fare requiremen t simpl y ensure s th e passenge r

i s awar e o f

th e total ticke t

pric e earlier . A s for

th e argumen t

that displayin g th e full far e coul dreduc e Spirit' s subscriptio n revenues , w e agre e tha t i t i s possibl e tha t 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 tha t th e actua l cos t

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

price . Thi s wa s fully 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 far

e advertisin g rul e i s "th e tim e save dfor thos e consumer s begiimin 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 that

thes e individual s "se e afare 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 piu-chas e aticke t

base do n th e advertise dprice , onl y t o findtha 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 . T o th e exten t

Southwes t

contend s it s Rapi dReward s progra mwil l b e impacted , absen t an y explanatio n o r

evidenc e o f

th e natur e o f

th e require dchanges , Southwest' s 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 , whic h wil l likel y requir e change s t o Southwest' s website , 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 Southwest' s websit e t o accommodat e thes e requirement s b y alertin g customer s earlie r i n th e purchas e proces s o f taxe s an dfee s that alread y mus t

b e calculated , disclosed , an dcollecte da t th 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 transportation ar e constantl y updatin g thei r fare matrice s an dth e method s b y whic h the y displa y fares. " Se e 7 6 Fed . Reg . 2314 3 (Apr . 25 , 2011) . I n addition , w e ar e no w givin g carrier s unti l Januar y 24 , 201 2 ( 9 month s fro mth e dat e th e final rul e wa s issued ) t o compl y wit h 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 . Southwest' s 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 . Accordingly , th e Departmen t finds that

Southwes t

wil l no t suffer 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 aSla v I s Granted , an dIssuanc e o f aSta y Woul dHar mth e Publi c Interes t Petitioner s an dSouthwes t mus t further demonstrat e tha t

n o othe r partie s wil l b e harme di f asta y i s granted , an dtha t

asta y woul dserv e th e publi c interest . Petitioner s an dSouthwes t argu e tha t

a sta y woul dno t

impos e an y substantial harmo n an y othe r perso n an dtha t

asta y 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 Petitioner s an d Southwest , wh o disagre e wit h th e ful l fare rul e provisions , the y fai l t o demonstrat e ho w asta y woul dno t har mothe r

partie s an dserv e th e publi c interest . Here , th e governmen t share s wit h th e publi c astron g interes t

i n timely implementatio n an denforcemen t o f ai r passenge r

consume r protection regulations . Th e Departmen t i s no t persuade dtha t

th e publi c wil l b e confuse di f 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 ' continue ddeceptiv e practices . T o th e contrary , th e interest s o f othe r partie s an dth e publi c ar e bes t serve db y enhancin g protection s for airline s passenger s a s se t 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 an dSouthwes t d o no t explai n ho w obtainin g consistenc y woul dconfuse , rathe r tha n aid . consumers . Moreover , i

f 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 that 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 ) (ureparabl e harmt o plaintif f arisin g fro mchallenge dregulation , balance dagains t simila r harmt o adiir 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 tha t th e issuanc e o f

asta y i n this matte r

woul dno t

harmothe r

partie s an d serv e th e publi c interest . IV . Conclusio n Th e Departmen t

ha s reviewe dSouthwest' s reques t for asta y o f th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e amendments , an dfinds tha t i t ha s faile dt o satisf

y an y o f th e four criteri arequire dfo r

a n agenc y t o gran t asta y pendin g judicia l review . Accordingly , th e Departmen t find s tha t

justic e doe s no t requir e asta y i n thi s matter . Sincerel y yours , y"^ ^ j



# 9^duj2^uL y Susa n Kurlan d Assistan t Secretar y fo r Aviatio n an dInternationa l Affair s