963. GE argues that PRPs that do not comply with UAOs suffer reputational damage along with four collateral consequences: EPA seeks greater penalties for PRPs that routinely do not comply with UAOs; noncompliance could make PRPs ineligible for participation in EPA programs like “Performance Track” and “Corporate Leaders”; noncompliance could lead to increased permitting times; and noncompliance impairs PRPs’ relationships with some stakeholders. The Court can easily dispose of the latter three collateral consequences GE alleges, as they are entirely hypothetical. The few courts willing to speculate that a collateral consequence will follow only do so when the consequences are inevitable. See, e.g., Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc. v. United States, 982 F.2d 594, 598 & n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The conclusion that noncompliance leads to
holding that state law tort claim for compensatory damages was too tenuously connected to airline regulation to trigger preemption under the ada holding that the airline deregulation act preempts claims under the illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act but does not preempt state breach of contract actions holding the illinois consumer fraud act preempted by the federal airline deregulation act to the extent the state law applied to airline frequent flier programs holding that congress did not intend to preempt state common law actions for personal injury based on the negligence of the airline or its employees holding that labeling an airline unsafe would inevitably cost the airline future government contracts