From: 	Wolf, Betsy <OST>
Sent: 	Friday, January 27, 2006 10:29 AM
To: 	'Bruce Bishins - USTAR'
Cc: 	Podberesky, Samuel <OST>
Subject: 	RE: Clarification Requested - Price Advertising

Dear Bruce,

I am well, thanks, and I hope you are, too.

Yes, the Department did mean to include the phrase "before the consumer makes the purchase" in the amendment proposed in Option II as it appears on page 73966 of the Federal Register ("FR"), where all of the proposed changes to Part 399 are officially set forth.  That phrase does not appear in Option II as discussed in the preamble, nor is it meant to.  Thanks to imprecise editing by the FR, some of which was not cleared with us, there is a discrepancy between the option numbering in the preamble and the option numbering on page 73966.  Option I in the preamble is the same as Option I on page 73966.  Option II in the preamble does not appear at all on page 73966, because the FR does not permit inclusion in this section of proposed rule text that is neither novel nor a modification of existing text.  Our Option II, as you know, proposes to modify our enforcement practice while leaving the text unchanged.  Additionally, the FR does not allow the listing of two alternate suboptions as one option.  It is therefore the first suboption of Option III in the preamble (see page 73964) that appears as Option II on page 73966.  The second suboption of Option III in the preamble is page 73966's Option III.  The two Option IVs are the same.

As for your second question, I hope that the preamble makes clear that the first suboption of Option III (a/k/a Option II on page 73966) would require only disclosure of the total price before the consumer makes the purchase, while the second suboption of Option III (a/k/a Option III on page 73966) would require both this disclosure and disclosure in advertisements of all price elements so that the consumer can calculate the total price.

I hope this clears up the confusion.  Had I been afforded more control over the final product, it would never have arisen.

Best wishes,
Betsy

----------
From: 	Bruce Bishins - USTAR
Sent: 	Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:41 PM
To: 	Wolf, Betsy <OST>
Subject: 	Clarification Requested - Price Advertising

Hello Betsy:

I hope this e-mail finds you well.

USTAR is preparing its comments regarding the NPRM in Docket OST-2005-23194.

In reviewing the NPRM cited in the Federal Register dated 14 December 2005, I am concerned about certain language proposed as an amendment to Section 399.84 if Option II is chosen. The proposed language in "Part 399 - Statements of General Policy, Subpart G" (page 73966 of the Federal Register) reads:

"The Department considers the sale of air transportation to be an unfair or deceptive practice unless the total price of the air transportation is disclosed to the consumer before the consumer makes the purchase."

Betsy, I believe the Department did not mean to include the phrase "before the consumer makes the purchase" in its proposed amendment in Option II. I believe this phrase was intended in Option III only.

In reading the preamble and the various scenarios/options presented, there is no discussion of full disclosure at a point which might narrowly disclose the total amount paid simply "before" the transaction is finalized. To the contrary, my reading of Option II is that full disclosure (all price components) is required at the outset of any price advertising.

In fact, the language proposed in the above cited "Subpart G" language on page 73966 is identical for Option II as it is in Option III (a).

As to the language proposed for Option III, aren't the proposed two choices either III (a) or alternatively, both III (a) and (b)? The proposed amendment would seem to indicate that either (a) or (b) are proposed amendments whereas the preamble suggests that it is either (a) or (a) plus (b). 

May I kindly request that the Department clarify/correct the above so that comments requested by the Department maybe as accurate and germane as possible.

I'll give you a buzz just to make sure I'm not misreading something.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Bruce